Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Qadri Advertising Service Sp Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Through Competent Athority – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.
This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the order, dated 05.06.2018 passed in E.A.No.47 of 2008 in E.P.No.75 of 2007 under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the CPC”) by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”).
2. The appellant herein is the Decree Holder/plaintiff and respondent No.1 herein is the claim petitioner/third party before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the claim petitioner/State represented through the competent authority/Additional Director General of Police, CID before the trial Court is that on 18.12.2002 on a complaint lodged by one Mohammed Raja against one Syed Taruj Ahmed, a case in Crime No.31 of 2002 was registered under Sections 120(B), 420, 409 of IPC and under Section 5 of the AP Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short ‘APPDFE Act’). The CID police has investigated and filed charge sheet which was taken on file as C.C.No.06 of 2004 by the
The decree holder must prove prior attachment of properties to challenge the competent authority's attachment under the APPDFE Act.
Possession at the time of attachment is critical for claims; ex-parte decrees obtained collusively are not binding on decree holders.
A claim under Order 38 Rule 10 of C.P.C is maintainable after the suit is decreed, and the attachment before judgment continues after the decree, adjudicable under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C.
Attachment before judgment requires strict compliance with procedural mandates; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable.
The court affirmed that ownership claims supported by clear documentary evidence can invalidate an attachment order under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC without necessitating a full trial.
Satisfaction of the Court is a pre-requisite for grant of conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC. Failure to comply with the requirements of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC renders th....
An order making an interim attachment absolute under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC is appealable.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
