BANK OF INDIA Vs. KOHINOOR STONE CRUSHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 15th June, 1988 of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Nawanshahar whereby the prayer to attach the properties of the respondents before judgment has been declined.

(2.) Without going into the controversy on the facts in dispute, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of changed crcumstances, his only prayer in the present petition is that the defendants he restrained from alienating their land situated in village Saloh Tehsil Nawanshahar and that the movable properties hypothecated with the petitioner-bank he attached before judgmcnt so that the security of the hank may not be diminished. He further contends that the respondents have taken a specific stand in the reply to the application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. that they had got additional 18 Kanals of land at village Saloh and the same is not under mortgage and if the plaintiff-Bank wants to take some more security, then their additional land may be attached before judgment but their house under attachment be released. During the course of arguments the counsel for the petitioner stated that the aforesaid house has already been sold and, therefore, he does not press for attachment of the same before judgment.

(3.) In my considered view, there cannot be any objection to the attachment of the movable property which is hypothecated with the petitioner bank and hence the bank has already got a lien over the same. The objection of restraining the defendants. From alienating their land is only to the effect that the defendant shall not be able to alienate the property during the pendency of the suit which will give only an additional security to the bank against the property already hypothecated with the bank.