Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Hasnain Massodi, J.
Gurpreet Singh v. Abdul Gani Dar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff filed for attachment before judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners challenge the trial court's order. (Para 4) |
| 3. court criticized the trial judge's failure to follow o.38 cpc. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. requirement for attachments must adhere to specific legal standards. (Para 8) |
1. In Suit for recovery of Rs. 6,93,760, the plaintiff - respondent No. 1 herein on 20th May 2009 filed an application under O.38 for attachment of the defendants property viz truck bearing registration No. HR - 38F - 5192 before the judgment. The respondent 1 case was that the property sought to be attached before the judgment was likely to be removed by the petitioner herein and other defendants - all residents of Ludhiana Punjab, outside the jurisdiction of the Court and thus the respondent No. 1 deprived of the fruits of litigation. The respondent No. 1 insisted that he had a foolproof and winnable claim against the petitioner and other defendants and suit instituted by the respondent No. 1, was likely to be decreed in his favour.
2. The Trial Judge on 20th May 2009 after summarising the averments made in the plaint as well as the application, issued notice to the petitioner and other
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
