SUNIL KUMAR NAGORI Vs. SANGEETA NAGORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sunil Kumar Nagori (defendant before the Family Court) has approached this Court for assailing the orders dated 20.11.2015 and 17.11.2017 whereby the learned Judge, Family Court purportedly accepted the application under filed by the respondent (applicant in the Family Court) under Order 21, Rule 54 Code of Civil Procedure and directed attachment of the shop No.S 9837 titled as "M/s Sunil Electronics, Gandhi Bazar, Bhilwara, holding the same to be in the absolute ownership of the respondent.

(2.) Challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order, Shri Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the application preferred by the respondent under Order 21, Rule 54 C.P.C. seeking attachment of the very same shop in question stood rejected by the Family Court by a well reasoned order dated 02.09.2015. Thereafter no fresh application was filed by the respondent and thus, there was no occasion for the Family Court to direct attachment of the shop in question which otherwise also is not within the exclusive ownership of the petitioner. He further submitted that the Family Court had generally adopted the practice of taking up the matter of the parties after lunch break. However, on 20.11.2015, the matter was taken up before lunch break and order of attachment was passed without hearing the petitioner.

(3.) Immediately after the order dated 20.11.2015 had been passed, the petitioner appeared in the Court after lunch hours on the same day and filed the application for recalling the said order requesting that he should be heard in the matter but the Family Court did not accede to this request. Shri Shah vehemently contended that there is no material available on record of the Family Court to show that the shop in question is in the exclusive ownership of the petitioner and rather it is virtually an admitted position that the shop is jointly owned by petitioner's father and brothers and thus, the joint family property could not have been attached by the Family Court.