Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Attachment in Suit and Form 2 Appendix G - If the property is already attached in a suit, there is generally no need to refile the same attachment using Form 2 Appendix G in EP (Execution Proceedings). The existing attachment remains valid unless it is challenged or annulled. In such cases, there is no requirement to file the same form again unless specific procedural issues arise. ["My. Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. M/s. City Men Forex and Travels Ltd. and Others - Madras"]
Legal Basis for Attachment and Forms - Forms prescribed in Appendices E and F of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are used for effecting attachment before judgment (Form 24, Appendix E) and attachment in execution (Form 24, Appendix F). The courts emphasize that the correct form must be used to ensure validity. For example, Form No. 24 of Appendix E is in conformity with Clause (1) of Rule 54 and Form No. 5 of Appendix F relates to attachment before judgment ["Chintalapati Venkata Subbarao VS Gamini Krishnayya - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Mohd. Hussain VS Syed Raheemuddin - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Gaya Thakur VS Bhagwat Prasad Sharma - Patna"], ["Mohammed Hariss VS Fathima - 1993 0 Supreme(Ker) 19"].
Attachment Before Judgment - When a property is already attached before judgment, there is generally no need to reattach the same property in subsequent proceedings unless the original attachment is invalid or has been discharged. The courts have held that an order of attachment made in a suit, which was dismissed for default, will not be revived if the suit is restored ["Mannil Abdul Gadhafi @ Abdul Gadhafi Mannil VS P. V. Mohammed, S/o. Veerankutty - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 155"] and attachment before judgment does not confer any title, charge, or lien unless properly effected ["My. Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. M/s. City Men Forex and Travels Ltd. and Others - Madras"].
Procedural Validity of Attachment - Proper use of the prescribed forms (Form No. 5 Appendix F for attachment before judgment, Form No. 24 Appendix E for attachment in execution) is mandatory. Failure to use the correct form or to publish notices as required can render the attachment invalid. For instance, no publication of attachment in the form laid down under Order 21, Rule 54, namely, in form No. 24 of appendix E, was made, invalidating the attachment ["Sita Nath Pati VS Sarada Prasanna Das - Calcutta"].
Impact of Existing Attachments on Subsequent Filing - If the property is already under attachment, filing a new attachment or reattachment in EP is generally unnecessary and may be barred by procedural rules. Courts have clarified that since properties are already under attachment by the competent authority, further attachment is not maintainable ["M/S.QADRI ADVERTISING SERVICES(P) LTD vs THE STATE THROUGH COMPETENT ATHORITY AND 11 OTHERS - Telangana"], ["Qadri Advertising Service Sp Ltd. vs State Through Competent Athority - Telangana"].
Filing of Appendix G Form - When a property has already been attached in a suit, and the attachment is valid, filing Form 2 Appendix G (which relates to applications for attachment or enforcement in EP) is typically not required again unless the original attachment is challenged or invalidated. The existing attachment suffices for enforcement purposes unless a procedural defect is identified ["My. Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. M/s. City Men Forex and Travels Ltd. and Others - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the complex world of civil litigation under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, property attachment is a crucial tool for securing claims. But what happens when you move from the suit stage to enforcement? A common question arises: If the property is already attached in a suit, do you need to file Form 2 (Appendix G) again in the Enforcement Petition (EP)?
This query often puzzles litigants, lawyers, and enforcement officers alike. Understanding the procedural nuances can prevent delays, invalid attachments, or costly mistakes. In this post, we'll break down the legal position, drawing from key CPC provisions, case law, and practical insights. Note: This is general information based on established principles and should not be taken as specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Generally, no fresh Form 2 (Appendix G) is required in the subsequent Enforcement Petition (EP) if the property was validly attached during the suit. The attachment, once properly effected, continues into enforcement proceedings unless lifted, set aside, or invalidated. Mannil Abdul Gadhafi @ Abdul Gadhafi Mannil VS P. V. Mohammed, S/o. Veerankutty - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 155
This principle streamlines enforcement by avoiding redundant filings, focusing instead on confirming the attachment's ongoing validity.
Under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, attachment before judgment secures the plaintiff's claim by prohibiting the defendant from disposing of property. Once ordered, it binds the property until:- The suit is dismissed (automatically ending attachment), M. Emelda Jothi VS M. Prabhakaran - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 3400 or- The court sets it aside. Mohammed Hariss VS Fathima - 1993 0 Supreme(Ker) 19
Once property is validly attached, the attachment continues until the suit is disposed of or the attachment is lifted or set aside. Mannil Abdul Gadhafi @ Abdul Gadhafi Mannil VS P. V. Mohammed, S/o. Veerankutty - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 155
Case law reinforces this: Invalid procedures render attachments void, but valid ones carry forward. Mohammed Hariss VS Fathima - 1993 0 Supreme(Ker) 19
Form 2 (Appendix G) relates to attachment orders in execution proceedings, but the documents clarify it's not for re-filing on subsisting attachments. Instead:- Forms like No.5 (Appendix F) apply to initial attachment before judgment.- Form No.7 for subsequent orders.
In EPs, you must identify the attached property and verify status, but not re-file the initial form if valid. The procedural emphasis is on enforcement mechanisms like sale, not fresh attachment.
EPs under Order XXI CPC execute decrees. If property was attached pre-decree and remains under attachment post-decree, enforcement proceeds on that basis. No explicit mandate requires Form 2 refiling. Mannil Abdul Gadhafi @ Abdul Gadhafi Mannil VS P. V. Mohammed, S/o. Veerankutty - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 155
Related rulings highlight continuity:- Attachment doesn't automatically revive on suit restoration if lapsed (e.g., due to dismissal or sale). M. Emelda Jothi VS M. Prabhakaran - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 3400 It has now become clear... that on a dismissal of a suit, the attachment before judgment automatically comes to an end even without an express order to that effect, but on the suit being restored, the order of attachment before judgment is not revived automatically.- Claims on attached property (Order XXI Rule 58) are adjudicated in EP itself, without separate suits. A. Chinnasamy VS Syedshah - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2213 ...all questions relating to the right, title or interest in the property attached arising between the parties... shall be adjudicated upon as per the mandate of Order XXI Rule 58(2) of CPC.
While generally unnecessary, exceptions demand caution:
In claim petitions (Order XXI Rule 58), no fixed limitation applies while attachment subsists, but courts reject delayed or post-sale claims. Anthony VS Kunjavarankutty Hajee - 2002 Supreme(Ker) 159 ...a claim petition can be filed so long as the attachment subsists.
These cases underscore verifying attachment status before EP filing.
To avoid pitfalls:1. Verify status: Confirm via court records if attachment persists—check for set-aside orders, dismissals, or sales.2. Document everything: Reference original attachment order in EP; attach copies.3. Seek fresh attachment if doubtful: If lapsed, file Form 2 to secure position.4. Address objections promptly: Handle third-party claims under Order XXI Rule 58.5. Professional guidance: Engage counsel to review specifics, as nuances vary by jurisdiction and facts.
Typically, if valid, skip refiling to expedite enforcement.
Navigating attachment from suit to EP requires precision. The rule of thumb: No need to refile Form 2 (Appendix G) for property already validly attached, unless invalidated or lapsed. This upholds efficiency under CPC while protecting rights.
Key Takeaways:- Valid attachments carry over seamlessly. Mannil Abdul Gadhafi @ Abdul Gadhafi Mannil VS P. V. Mohammed, S/o. Veerankutty - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 155- Exceptions trigger re-filing: invalidity, discharge, or expiry. Mohammed Hariss VS Fathima - 1993 0 Supreme(Ker) 19- Integrate EP with prior records for smooth execution.- Always confirm status to prevent procedural voids.
Stay informed on CPC updates, and remember: Proactive verification saves time and costs. For tailored advice, consult a legal expert.
References:1. Mohammed Hariss VS Fathima - 1993 0 Supreme(Ker) 19: Attachment validity and voidness.2. Mannil Abdul Gadhafi @ Abdul Gadhafi Mannil VS P. V. Mohammed, S/o. Veerankutty - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 155: Continuity until set aside.3. M. Emelda Jothi VS M. Prabhakaran - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 3400: No auto-revival on restoration.4. A. Chinnasamy VS Syedshah - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2213: Fraud pleas in attachment claims.5. Anthony VS Kunjavarankutty Hajee - 2002 Supreme(Ker) 159: Claim petitions during subsisting attachment.
#CPCAttachment #EnforcementPetition #LegalForms
But is presumed that it is in the same form as contained in form 24 of appendix E to the Civil Procedure Code. That only is directed against the defendant or the judgment - debtor and the word 'defendant or judgment - debtor' would not include a mortgagee with power of sale. ... Considering the fact that 'C' schedule property in Application No. 1556 of 2006 was already sold, the attachment before judgment already granted by this Court on 4-10-2005 is to continue with ....
A-2(a), was in the terms of Form No. 5 of Appendix F and the notice to the defendant was also in the same terms. ... The 8th defendant was the purchaser of a portion of the mortgaged property, namely, items 3 and 5 of schedule A and item 2 of Schedule B, at a Court-sale held on 29-6-1942 in execution of a money decree in O. S. No. 37 of 1933 on the file of the District Court of Krishna. ... The absence of a suitable form in 1933 in Appendix F, Civil ....
If Form No. 5 in Appendix -p is not sufficient, Form No. 24 in Appendix e with appropriate modifications can be utilised to effectuate the order of attachment before judgment of immoveable property. ... provisions contained in Order 21 rule 54 providing for attachment of immoveable property in execution of a decree, and Form No, 24 in Appendix e . ... No. 68/64 on the file of the 3rd Assistant....
The proper form to be used for conditional attachment was Form No. 5 of Appendix F. The case of Harihar Pandey V/s. ... However, it is the form in which the order under Order 38 Rule 5 is to be served, but the actual attachment where the property is immoveable, is to be effected in the manner provided in Order 21 Rule 54 for which the proper form is prescribed in Appendix E, Form 24". ... ... There cannot be the s....
But there was no publication of attachment in the form laid down under Order 21, Rule 54, namely, in form No. 24 of appendix B. ... The decree obtained by the plaintiff was passed on 28th May 1930 and the properties were auction-purchased by him on 30th April 1932 as already mentioned. 2. ... The Courts below having held that no notice in form No. 24 of appendix E, was published and fixed on the properties there was no valid proclamation or #HL_START....
Therefore, there is no need for the petitioner to file a separate suit to get a declaration of fraudulent transfer and he can raise the plea of fraudulent transfer in a petition filed by 1st respondent to raise attachment and the same shall be adjudicated upon as per the mandate of Order XXI Rule 58( ... 2) of CPC. ... In view of Order XXI Rule 58(2) of CPC, all questions relating to the right, title or interest in the property attached arising between the parties or ....
For a better appreciation of the rival contentions O.38, Rules 5 and 6 Form in Appendix F of C.P.C. need extraction. ... attached or value of the same and only in case the solvency of the property offered by the surety is accepted Form 6 in Appendix-F can be taken into account by the court below. ... ... Form No.6 in Appendix-F: Security for the Production of Property (0.38, Rule 5) ... (Title) ... Whereas at the instance of........
to attach before judgment in respect of first item except the portion of the property already sold by the appellant as security for the suit claim. ... The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the second item mentioned in the attachment petition is a valuable property more than the suit claim and it is free from encumbrance. ... with Form No. ... At the time of submission, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the trial Court has....
What we stated is that an order of attachment made in a suit, which is dismissed for default, will be revived if the suit is restored on file. ... Thalekkara Sulaikha and others [2020 (2) KHC 177 : 2020 (2) KLT 248] confronted with a question, whether alienation of an immovable property after restoration on file the suit, in which there was an order of temporary injunction against alienation before ... The ratio laid down is that an....
The appendices to the Code of Civil Procedure contain the following forms to be used for effecting attachment. appendix-e Form No.24 is the form to be used when attachment of immovable property in execution is ordered. appendix-f, Form No.5 relates to attachment before judgment, which form is to be used ... From a reading of R.5 of O.XXXVIII along with Form No.5 of appendix-f, it....
No.35 of 2000 that they were not in possession of the property. If they are really in possession of property, there was no necessity to file EP.
Petitioner also urged that “Principal Civil Court” for the purpose of enforcing the award is the "Principal District Court" and therefore Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the E.P. Petitioner moved an application under Section 47 of CPC being EA No.157 of 2008 to drop the execution proceedings on the ground that E.P. is barred by limitation, that E.P. schedule property is situated outside the jurisdiction of Rajahmundry Court and that E.P. is not maintainable in view of pendency of application under Section 34 of Arbitration Act. Again in 2007 respondent fi....
It has now become clear from the above provision that on a dismissal of a suit, the attachment before judgment automatically comes to an end even without an express order to that effect, but on the suit being restored, the order of attachment before judgment is not revived automatically. Therefore, there cannot be automatic revival of the attachment before judgment if the suit is restored to file.
We are here only concerned with the question whether any period is fixed for the purpose of filing a claim petition. After the amendment of the C.P.C. in 1976, it has been laid down that all questions including those relating to right, title or interest in the property shall be determined by the court dealing with the claim or objection and not by a separate suit. It may happen that the property may not belong to the judgment debtor and it would have been attached as if it belonged to the judgment debtor. In such cases, a provision is made to enable the owner of the property to fil....
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
