ORDER

The revision petitioner is the respondent in C.M.P.Ex.No.491 of 2009 in M.C.No.343 of 2005. The impugned order reads as follows:

“Petition filed under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Petitioner is present.

Property details produced. Issue Attachment and Sales Order to District Collector.

-14/10/09.”

2. It is not revealed out as to whether the respondent was served with notice or not. In the cause title it is stated that the revision petitioner not entered appearance. The legality and sustainability of the claim are also not mentioned in the order impugned. What is the amount due and what are all items to be attached and sold are also not mentioned in the order impugned. It also appears that the court below had not satisfied that the articles sought to be attached are belonging to the revision petitioner or not. In the above circumstance, prima facie the order impugned is not sustainable.

3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner had very valid and substantial objection including the sustainability of the claim and that the revision petitioner filed his objection dated 12/6/2009, copy of which is produced as Annexure-3