SATPAL SINGH Vs. SUNIL KUMAR AMIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON question that arises for consideration in both these revision petitions being C. R. No. 1716 of 1996 and C. R. No. 1277 of 1996, is whether non-recording of satisfaction as postulated under the provisions of order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before passing any order of attachment under those provisions would or would not vitiate the entire order.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code before the Trial Court to which reply was filed by the defendants disputing the claim of the plaintiff-Bank with a prayer that the application be dismissed.

(3.) IN the present case, admittedly, the Court has not recorded any satisfaction as stipulated under these provisions nor it complied with the provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order 38 of the Code. Non-adherence to these statutory rules renders the order ineffective and void. By Amending Act of 1976 the Legislature had introduced Sub-rule (4) to Rule 5 of Order 38 of the Code. Introduction of these provisions in the Statute clearly indicates the unambiguous and definite intention of the Legislature with regard to definite compliance of the mandatory provisions as indicated in Sub-rule (1) of the said rules.