ACT: Civil Procedure Code. 1908: Section 64 and Order 21 Rule 57Attachment order--Execution petition or suit in which attachment ordered dismissed--Restoration of such proceed- ings--Whether attachment revived--Alienation of attached property--Whether affected. -An order of restoration of a suit dismissed for default would certainly restore or revive the attachment for the period during which it was in subsistence, namely, prior to the dismissal of the suit or execution application. In the present case both transactions, sale by the judgment-debtor and subsequent sale by the purchaser to the respondents, were effected during the subsistence of the attachment and before the Title Execution Case was dismissed for default. The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in taking the view that by reason of the dismissal of the said Title Execution Case, the attachment came to an end and the order of restoration of the said case would not affect any alienations made before the restoration, although such alienations might have been made during the subsistence of the attachment. -2015 S.C.(1987) msklawreports


    The  appellant  filed a petition for  execution  of  the
money  decree  obtained  by her in High  Court against  the
judgment-debtor  and attachment was levied in  execution  on
open land and a portion of the premises in question  belong-
ing  to  the judgment-debtor.  Subsequently,  the  judgment-
debtor sold a portion of the attached property. The purchas-
er  in turn, sold a portion thereof to the respondents.  The
aforesaid  execution petition was dismissed for default  but
later on an application by the appellant, the said Execution
Case was restored, and the said property was again attached,
and a proclamation for sale of the said property was  issued
under  Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The
respondents' petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of C.P.C.  for
releasing  the property purchased by the  respondents from
attachment was dismissed. The High Court allowed the appeal.
    In appeal to this Court, it was urged on behalf of  the
appellant  that in view of the provisions of Section  64  of
the Code of Civil procedure, the sale of the property by the
judgment debtor to the purchaser and the sale thereafter  by
him to the respondents, which were both effected during  the
subsistence  of  the attachment, were void  as against  the
appellant decree-holder, and although the attachment  ceased
on  the  dismissal of the Title Execution Case,  on  May  9,
1972, it was revived by restoration of the case.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
    HELD:  An order of restoration of a suit  dismissed  for
default would certainly restore or revive the attachment for
the period during which it was in subsistence, namely, prior
to  the  dismissal of the suit or execution  application.  

    In the  present  case both transactions,  sale  by  the
judgment-debtor and subsequent sale by the purchaser to  the
respondents,  were  effected during the subsistence  of  the
attachment and before the Title Execution Case was dismissed
for default. 
    The  Division  Bench of the High Court was in  error  in
taking the view that by reason of the dismissal of the said
Title Execution Case, the attachment came to an end and  the
order  of restoration of the said case would not affect  any
alienations  made  before  the restoration,  although such
alienations  might have been made during the subsistence  of
the attachment. - 2015 SC ( 1987) msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)