MANULAL SINGHANIA Vs. NATWAR LAL THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is by the decree holder against an order of the executing court releasing the property from attachment under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter to be called as 'the Code') long after the sale and its confirmation at a stage when delivery of possession had been issued.

(2.) The relevant facts are these: The petitioner brought Execution Case No. 18 of 1962 in the court below for realisation and sale of the two properties. The properties were sold on 14-5-1963 and the sale confirmed on 18-6-1963. Before, however, the decree holder would succeed in obtaining delivery of possession, opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 filed a miscellaneous case on 18-2-1965 only two days earlier when the delivery of possession was to be effected by the court's Nazir, under various provisions of the Code, namely, Sections 47, 94, 151 and Order 21 Rules 58, 90 and 99 and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code for release of one of the properties sold in execution case, namely, lot No. 3 on the ground that the judgment debtor had already transferred his interest in the property in question by a registered document on 13-2-1950, and he thereafter was occupying the premises in question as tenants against whom the opposite party had already obtained a decree for eviction. It was further pleaded on their behalf that the property in question was at the relevant time under the control of the joint Civil Judge of Ahmedabad in Insolvency Case No. 20 of 1953 taken by a creditor against the transferee of the judgment debtors in which case this property was described as belonging to the judgment debtors' transferee.

(3.) An objection was taken on behalf of the decree-holder petitioner that an application for release of this property from attachment could not be entertained at this stage when the sale had already been confirmed. On merits of the case of the opposite party, the petitioner also denied all those allegations. However, it is not necessary for me to examine the case of the parties on those questions and, accordingly, it is not necessary either to state all those facts.