MANGALRAM Vs. NARAINLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the defendant Mangalram and two others in a suit which is pending in the court of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur.

(2.) THE material facts out of which this revision arises may be shortly stated as follows. THE plaintiffs opposite parties filed a suit against the defendants petitioners in the court of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur, for a sum of Rs. 4447/12/- on the 16th February, 1954. THE plaintiffs also presented an application lor attachment before judgment under 0. 38 r. 5 C. P. C. on the same date whereby for certain reasons mentioned in the application, two houses of the defendants were sought to be attached. THEreupon the trial court issued a notice to the defendants either to furnish security in the sum which was mentioned in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the court, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or to appear and show cause why they should not furnish security. THE court also passed a conditional order of attachment of the two houses in question under sub-rule (3) of rule 5. What then happened was that when the bailiff went to serve this notice on the defendants, they furnished security to him and consequently no attachment was made as ordered by the court. THEreafter the case came before the court on the 8th April, 1954 by which date the defendants had also raised their objections to the plaintiffs' prayer under O. 38, r. 5 C. P. C. THE trial court held and, in my opinion, rightly that the security which the defendants gave to the bailiff and was accepted by him was absolutely unauthorised. That court, however, instead of considering the objections filed by the defendants directed a fresh conditional attachment of the properties in question of the defendants and further ordered that if the defendants should give security to the court before the warrant of attachment was issued, the order of conditional attachment shall not be executed, and that the objections raised by the defendants would be considered later. Against this order, the defendants went in appeal to the learned District Judge, Bharatpur who dismissed the appeal on the men's. THE present revision was then filed by the defendants in this Court, and this is how- the matter has come up before me.