ORDER : This is a revision application against an order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajkot, allowing an application made by opponents 1 and 2 Hiralal Amratlal and Ramniklal Amratlal for the removal of attachment under O. 21, R. 58, C. P. Code levied by the present applicant Nalinkant Bhanushanker in execution of a money decree obtained by him against opponents 3 to 9 in civil suit No. 70 of 1950 of the Rajkot Civil Court. It is necessary to set out certain facts in order to under stand and appreciate the dispute properly. The property attached is a theatre known as Nutan Theatre situated at Rajkot. This property along with other property was owned by opponents 3 to 9 (original defendants 2 to 8) and was mortgaged by them to Hiralal Amratlal, opponent 1, and his brother Jayantilal Amratlal and in suit No. 415 of 1950 of the Rajkot Court the said mortgagees obtained a decree on the mortgage for Rs. 4,95,000 together with costs and further interest. One Nautamlal Chhotalal Tej-pal then offered to purchase the Nutan Theatre from opponents 3 to 9 and the said opponents 3 to 9 passed an agreement of sale in his favour for Rs. 4,40,005. Nautamlal paid the consideration to the said opponents 3 to 9 and this sum he borrowed from Tarachand Amratlal, who is a brother of opponents 1 and 2 Hiralal and Ramniklal and in lieu thereof Nautamlal executed an agreement in favour of the said Tarachand Amratlal to mortgage the Theatre along with his own house and in the meantime passed a promissory note for Rs. 4,40,005 to Tarachand. The possession of Nutan Theatre was handed over by opponents 3 to 9 to Nautamlal on 26-4-51, but they failed to execute the document of sale in favour of Nautamlal as agreed to by them. Nautamlal on his part failed to execute the document of mortgage in favour of Tarachand and so Tarachand filed a suit No. 293 of 1954 for specific performance of the said agreement against Nautamlal and against opponents 3 to 9 claiming reliefs, inter alia, that defendants 2 to 8 of that suit (present opponents 3 to 9) should be ordered to execute a document of sale in favour of Nautamlal and that Nautamlal on his part should be ordered to execute a document of mortgage in favour of Tarachand. This suit ended in a consent decree on 30-10-54 whereby defendants 2 to 8 were to execute the document of sale directly to Tarachand or his nominees and Nautamlal was to join in execution of that sale deed. The said defendants having failed to execute the sale deed, Tarachand filed Darkhast No. 408 of 1954 on 3-12-54 for the execution of the sale deed as provided by the decree and while the Darkhast was pending Nalinkant Bhanushanker, the present applicant, filed a Darkhast on 3-12-55 to execute his own decree against the said defendants 2 to 8 (opponents 3 to 9) and attached the Nutan Theatre. As the consent decree in suit No. 293/54 provided that the sale deed was to be executed either in favour of Tarachand or his nominee, Tarachand nominated opponents Nos. 1 and 2 Hiralal and Ramniklal, and on 11-2-55 on the orders of the executing. Court, the Nazar of the Court executed a sale deed of the Nutan Theatre in their favour as nominees of Tarachand. Then on 3-3-55 opponents Nos. 1 and 2 applied for removal of the attachment of the Nutan Theatre on the ground that they were the legal owners of the property and had received actual possession of the Theatre on 11-2-55. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, allowed this claim and ordered removal of the attachment and it is against this order that the decree-holder Nalinkant has come in revision.

(2) The first contention made by Mr. Joshi, who appears for the decree-holder, is that opponents 1 and 2 had no locus standi to apply for removal of the attachment, in that they had no interest in the property at the date of the attachment nor were they in possession thereof, and their application under O. 21, R. 58 was not maintainable at all. Now O. 21, R. 59, C. P. Code requires that the claimant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document