ORDER: Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He has obtained the money decree against the third respondent/defendant. It is in execution thereof, an attachment of property was sought. The respondents 1 and 2, who are the grandsons of the original judgment debtor claim that the property was sold by the third respondent in their favour in 1993.

2. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the sale in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 in 1993 was falsely set up. The fact that there was an earlier mortgage on the same property by the third defendant in favour of a bank in 1990 and subsequent renewal in the year 1995 will itself disprove the purchase of the said property claimed by the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the revision petitioner wanted to prove the renewal of the mortgage made by the third respondent in favour of the bank in the year 1995 regarding the same property. While the decree holder examined himself on this respect, the respondent contended that the banker should be examined. On summons issued at the instance of the revision petitioner, the bank employee was examined as R.W.2. The respondents contended that as per Sec.5 of the Bankers’ Books, the bank employee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document