1/2 21 WP-7123.21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.7123 OF 2021

Meenal Manik Yedur & Anr.

..

Petitioners

Vs.

Satyamma Krishnahari Singam

& Anr.

..

Respondents

…

Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni for the petitioners.

…

CORAM

: SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED

: 26^TH OCTOBER, 2021.

P.C:-

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd

Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur on 17/02/2021 on an

application filed by the plaintiff seeking attachment of property

before judgment by invoking Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

impugned order. It is manifest that the plaintiffs filed the suit

against defendants and the property in the schedule is the one

which is owned by defendant No.1. An application was moved

seeking attachment of the property before judgment in the wake

of the notice issued in a daily newspaper and that was pleaded to

be the cause for seeking attachment.

AJN

JAYARAJAN

ANJAKULATH

NAIR

Digitally signed by

JAYARAJAN

ANJAKULATH NAIR

Date: 2021.10.28

14:09:11 +0530

2/2 21 WP-7123.21.odt

3.

The application was opposed by the defendants and the

court recorded that the property sought to be attached was

brought for sale and even a notice was given but subsequently

the transaction was cancelled. The defendants pleaded before

the court that the property is already under attachment under the

SARFAESI Act at the instance of the Canara Bank. In any case,

the property cannot be sold. In the wake of the said statement,

the impugned order record that the apprehension expressed by

the applicant justifying invocation of power to effect attachment

before judgment cannot be exercised.

4.

I concur with the said finding rendered in the said

impugned order. Since the apprehension expressed does not

exist, learned Judge was justified in declining the relief claimed.

The request made by learned counsel for the petitioners to create

a second charge in their favour in the said property is not within

the realm of my jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is

dismissed.

5.

Needless to state that the observations made above are

limited to the application, which was decided by the impugned

order.

[SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

AJN