1
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.886/2008
Dilip Parakh & Ors. vs. Panna Lal & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.886/2008
Dilip Parakh & Ors. vs. Panna Lal & Ors.
Date : 20.10.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.V Sanadhya for Mr.V Balia, for the appellant.
Mr.RK Thanvi, for the respondents.
– – – – –
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellants are aggrieved against the order
dated 21.1.2008 passed by the Court of Additional
District Judge No.3, Jodhpur under Order 38 Rule 6 CPC
whereby the trial court attached the House No.37E
situated at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed one
application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC which was allowed
by the trial court vide order dated 1.12.2006 and the
defendants/appellants were directed to submit the
security for Rs.3 lakhs and also restrained the
defendants from alienating the House No.37E situated at
Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
2
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.886/2008
Dilip Parakh & Ors. vs. Panna Lal & Ors.
Admittedly, the security was not submitted by the
defendants, then the plaintiff submitted application
under Order 38 Rule 6 CPC for attachment of the House
No.37E situated at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
in order dated 1.12.2006, the trial court did not give
any time for furnishing the security and thereby the
appellant could not comply with the order dated
1.12.2006. It is submitted that giving of time under
Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is mandatory.
I perused the submissions of learned counsel for
the appellant and the reasons given by the trial court
in its impugned order.
Since the appellant did not submit any security
and the order dated 1.12.2006 has never been challenged
by the appellant, therefore, after carefully going
through the facts of the case, if the trial court has
passed the order to attach the property in dispute
which, according to the appellant himself, he cannot
sell as that property is also subjected to interim
restraint order passed by Bombay High Court, therefore,
in the totality of the facts of the case, I do not find
3
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.886/2008
Dilip Parakh & Ors. vs. Panna Lal & Ors.
that the trial court has committed any illegality in
passing the impugned order.
In view of the above, this appeal, having no
merits, is hereby dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
S.Phophaliya