SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(AP) 251

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMACHANDRA RAO, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Chimandas Methuram - Appellant
Versus
Manager Mahadevappa Firm - Respondent
Decided On : 10-25-60

Order 38, Rule 5 and Order 21, Rule 46, C. P. C., read with Section 136, C. P. C., authorize the attachment of properties situate beyond the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted.

Headnote:

ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY - JURISDICTION - ORDER 38, RULE 5 AND ORDER 21, RULE 46, C. P. C. - PROPERTIES SITUATE BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - ATTACHMENT PERMISSIBLE - SECTION 136, C. P. C. - PROCEDURE FOR ATTACHMENT.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money in the District Munsifs Court, Adoni. During the pendency of the suit, he applied for attachment before judgment of immovable properties and certain monies in the hands of the trustees of defendants 1 to 4, who were not in solvent circumstances. The properties were situated outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. The trial court directed the attachment of the properties. The trustees filed a revision petition challenging the order of attachment.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Order 38, Rule 5 and Order 21, Rule 46, C. P. C. do not impose any restriction on the power of the Court to levy attachment in regard to properties outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is filed. The court further held that Section 136, C. P. C. provides the procedure for effecting attachment of properties not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which has seisin of the suit.

Issues: Whether Order 38, Rule 5 and Order 21, Rule 46, C. P. C. authorize the attachment of properties situate beyond the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Order 38, Rule 5 and Order 21, Rule 46, C. P. C. and held that these provisions do not contain any prohibition against the levy of attachment of properties beyond the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is pending. The court also held that Section 136, C. P. C. is equally applicable to these provisions and provides the procedure for effecting attachment of properties not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the trial court directing the attachment of the properties.

REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises an interesting question, namely whether the properties situate beyond the jurisdiction of a Court in which a suit is filed could be attached under Order 38, Rule 5 or Order 21, Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THE material facts may be briefly stated. The first respondent plaintiff laid an action for the recovery of Rs. 5,080. 00 based on a document executed by defendants 1 to 4 on 14-1-1955 to the District Munsifs Court, Adoni. Pending the suit, he applied1 for attachment before judgment of the immovable properties described in the schedule annexed to the petition and certain monies in the hands of the present appellants who were constituted trustees for the purpose of discharging the debts due by defendants 1 to 4 who were not in solvent circumstances.

( 3 ) THE petition was opposed chiefly on the ground that as the properties were outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit was filed, they could not be attached. We are unconcerned here with the other objections to the application.

( 4 ) OVERRULING this opposition, the trial court directed the attachment of the properties in question.

( 5 ) DISSATISFIED with this order, defendants 5 to 7 who as we have already stated, were trustees to whom defendants 1 to 4 conveyed their properties for the purpose mentioned above, filed the revision petition under section 115 C. P. C.

( 6 ) WHEN the petition came on for hearing before our learned brother Seshachalapati J. he referred the matter to a Bench as, in his opinion, there should be an authoritative decision of a Bench Of this Court.

( 7 ) THE main controversy in this petition is Whether Order 38, Rule 5 or Order 21, Rule 46, C. P. C. will be attracted to properties situate outside the jurisdiction of a Court in which the suit is instituted.

( 8 ) IT is convenient at this stage to read the relevant statutory provisions.

( 9 ) ORDER 38, Rule 5 C. P. C. " (1) Where, at any stage of a suit, the court is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him- (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the Jurisdiction of the court, the court may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security, in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the Court, where required, the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. (2) The plaintiff shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, specify the property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof. (3) The court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified. "

( 10 ) ORDER 21, Rule 46; " (1) In the case of- (a) a debt not secured by a negotiable instrument; (b) a share in the capital of a Corporation, (c) other movable property not in the possession of the judgment-debtor, except property deposited in, or in the custody of, any court, the attachment shall be made by a written order prohibiting- (i) in the case of the debt, the creditor from recovering the debt and the debtor from making payment thereof until the further order of the Court; (ii) in the case of the share, the person in whose name the share may be standing from transferring the same or receiving any dividend thereon; (iii) in the case of the other movable property except as aforesaid, the person in possession of the same from giving it over to the judgment-debtor. (2) A copy of such order shall be affixed on some conspicuous part of the court-house and another copy shall be sent in the case of the debt, to the debtor, in the case of the share, to the proper officer













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top