S. K. PURI Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition is directed against order dated 24.9.2018 passed by the court of Principal District Judge, Jammu.

(2.) Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged in the instant petition by the petitioner, a brief background of the case is delineated hereunder:

(3.) The impugned order is being challenged by the objector petitioner herein inter alia on the grounds that the same has been passed erroneously and is unsustainable having been passed without taking into account provisions of Order 38 Rule 21 CPC. The impugned order is further stated to have been passed without application of mind and in a slipshod and cryptic manner. The impugned order is also stated to have been passed without disclosing the effect of initial order of attachment before judgment passed by the court on 30.1.2009 which too is stated to have been passed in violation of Order 38 Rule 5 and 7 read with Order 21 Rule 54 CPC. The trial court is also stated to have not followed further subsequent procedure after passing of the attachment order dated 30.1.2009 as provided under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC and that the decree holder cannot derive any interest or right over the property in pursuance of the said attachment order dated 30.1.2009. It is further urged in the grounds that the trial court had failed to take any subsequent steps in pursuance of the attachment order dated 30.1.2009 provided under Form 24 of Appendix-E as well as Form-5 of Appendix-F of CPC as the said order was not pasted on the property in question and no report was ever sought by the concerned agency somuch so that the said order was not even communicated to the concerned through Deputy Commissioner/Tehsildar for necessary action resulting into non-endorsement of attachment order in the necessary revenue records and thereby not providing any clue or knowledge of the said attachment order to the objector petitioner herein who purchased the said property from the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant judgment debtor on the basis of FardeIntikhab duly attested by the concerned agency which Intikhab did not mention the passing of the attachment order dated 30.1.2009. The property thus is stated to have not been under custodia legis of the trial court and that the trial court without taking into account the said position erroneously rejected the application of the objector petitioner herein. It is further urged in the grounds that the initial order of attachment dated 30.1.2009 passed by the trial court is null and void and non-est, and, therefore, the executing court could not have placed reliance on the said attachment order dated 30.1.2009 while passing the impugned order dated 24.9.2018. It is further urged in the grounds that the court below did not balance the equities and attached the entire land comprising of 8 kanals and 7 marlas while as the court below ought to have attached only 2 kanals and 7 marlas of land having regard to the circle rate of the said land notified by the Deputy Commissioner vide notification dated 28.3.2018 notifying the rate of the land per kanal as Rs. 86.46 lakh for commercial and Rs. 50.82 lakh for residential plot and that since the present land being commercial, the court below could have directed auction for two kanals while protecting the interests of the petitioner herein being a bona fide purchaser of the property in question. The executing court is stated to have thus divested the objector petitioner herein of the whole property resulting into an irreparable loss to the petitioner.