High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Hari Om Singh v. Special Judge (E.C. Act) A.D.J. Moradabad & Another - WRIT - C No. 34027 of 2006  RD-AH 10859 (4 July 2006)
HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner's objection under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. had been rejected by the executing court as well as the appellate court by the impugned orders (Annexures 6 & 8 to the writ petition).
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in the property which was made subject of attachment by the executing court the petitioner/judgment debtor had only 1/6th share whereas the attachment Parwana which was issued directed for attachment of 1/3rd share of the said property and, therefore, the whole subsequent procedure adopted by the court was erroneous and illegal.
A perusal of the orders of the courts below goes to demonstrate to the fact that the property which was made subject of attachment was only 1/6th share of the petitioner/judgment debtor and not anything beyond that. It is also observed in the orders that the Amin actually affected the attachment only to the extent of 1/6th share of the property. Therefore, in such circumstances if the petitioner's share alone has been finally attached in pursuance to the execution of the decree of recovery of money, there is absolutely no illegality and in this view of the matter the courts below have rightly rejected the petitioner's objection.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in those orders and in the result, the writ petition being devoid of force is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.