SONRAJ Vs. JAMAT RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dtd.25.11.2008 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff - petitioner under Order 38 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking attachment of the property in question before judgment. The learned trial Court has also rejected the prayer of the plaintiff- petitioner to implead the purchaser of the property in question under sale-deed Annex.3 dtd.20.8.2007.

(2.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff - petitioner Mr. Om Mehta relying on decision of Bombay High Court in the case of SBI Home Finance Limited v/s Credential Finance Ltd. reported in AIR 2001 Bombay 179, urged that during the pendency of said application, which was filed by the plaintiff - petitioner on 31.7.2007, reply to which was made by the defendant before the learned trial Court on 16.11.2007, in which the defendant stated in para 1 and 3 of the said reply that he is residing in said property situated at village Sarat, which is his ancestral village and property and he does not intend to sell the said property, whereas the fact is that the said defendant Jamat Raj had already sold the suit property in question to one Vijay Kumar by registered sale-deed on 20.8.2008 vide Annex.3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff - petitioner therefore submitted that the defendant has apparently made a false statement in his reply filed before the learned trial Court and thus misled the Court. He sold the property in question avoiding attachment before the judgment for which the application under Order 38 Rule 1 C.P.C. was pending before the learned trial Court. He, therefore, submits that the learned trial Court has not only erred in not attaching the suit property in question, but has also erred in rejecting the application of the plaintiff - petitioner for impleading the purchaser Vijay Kumar under the said sale-deed as party - defendant.

(3.) These submissions are opposed by the learned counsel for the defendant - respondent Mr.Rakesh Arora who submits that in reply to the application filed by the plaintiff - petitioner seeking impleadment of Vijay Kumar, the defendant had disclosed this fact in para 2 that he had sold the suit property to Vijay Kumar. This reply was filed on 13.5.2008 vide Annex.5.