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

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more