Tanigebylu post. '1'a:-ikere Taiuk. .. RESPONDENTS
[By Shri:S.V.Prakash. Advocate for Respondent 1) H
g’\
This Writ Petition is filed under C
the Constitution of Endia with a prayer to quash» the orders’. ‘
passed by the learned Civii Judge K3-eriior’ D__i\2-ision}’ and ‘
Principal J MP C Tarikere dated 3. ii?,.2C{0T in S. No.37/’2.0L1.5.
This Writ Petition eomingieionp for ‘B’
group this day. the Court made the foe11owi’n5:y– :
Heard the foriatliievh Vpetitioner and the
respondentfto.13;’ _. . ”
2. purchaser of the suit property
whvieh is the matter of attachment under an
appliea’i:iyonW’ender Order XXXVHI Rule 5 of Code of Civil
P1%t;(;ed’t1£”e_ it is the petitioners case that he had
entherecidtintio an agreement of sale with the defendant in
it fl’T1E:’*~.§1.1iVtH’ and had purchased the property by a registered
— on 2.1.2006. But however, it transpires that
trial Court in the pending suit had issued an order of
K
at.tachn’3ent: in respect to the same property as on
24.3.2005. It is therefore apparent that the order of
attachment was between the dates of agreement flo.f.v’sa1e
and the date of sale. Hence. the questionfwihetherrr
defendant was aware of the order’.of,attaehmer1t’ and 7.
inspite of the same. he could h’a_v;e._so1drpropertyito
the present petitioner an’t:«1:°whether_V_ sale is
voidable or not, a11_«”Vpoints Vivofpadjtidiiication which
ought to be deterrnined a.–pp’rofpri’ate proceedings.
The petitioner’fh.o’WeVier =:who”see1<'.s~.t.o: irnplead himself in
the p;éndingV..sVuit.V::A§eéiiiiiadfliiied application under Order I
Rule a1ong.VV.Wijth.i"an'~application seeking removal of
attaeehmentf ..:on~.7the'- ground that he is a bona fide
pVti'i'c.hé'serM¥for and that the agreement of sale
ha;*_ving.v4fbyeenfentered into, prior to the date of
att"a.cht_nenti'. he had a right of enforcement of the said
V. agreement and the same having been executed without
' "knowledge of the petitioner, that there was an order
attachment, would yet protect his interest. The
6
trial Court however having rejected the application
under Order 1 Rule 10 and the other seeking to remove
the order of attachment, the petitioner is this
Court.
3. VVhile it is justified that the trial’Cogirtjlhasiiejeczted ‘
the application seeking torenjoveithe attac’l9i.iji~ienVt-ion tliie’
admitted circumstance the .sale_is:§ executed,
subsequent to the order. the application
seeking to implead rejected by the
trial i._s”i.hexpl’icable, in the circumstances
that the ex–parte and it is the present
petitioners” p:i’operty- tliat is now brought to attachment.
. whether the sale was bona tide and
‘thfe.Vi.attacéhment could be taken to its logical
co-nClL;vsion~” would remain a question to be adjudicated
..insofar– as the petitioner is concerned. Hence, the trial
ought. to have allowed the application for
” -inipleading the present petitioner and permit the
3
petitioner to raise his defence. insofar as the attachment
is concerned and this would have been ar1uirssL1_e for
adjudication as against the petitioner.
petition is ailowed in part. The order passeti:’_rej’e:cti:ng:
application under order I Riile «of»
Procedure. 1908 is set asi(:1e–~.._ ‘E’h’e~t:ria1’ ritireeteid
to implead the present peti.tio:n.er’as “defe1f1_(iant and to
permit him to file _notwithstanding,
the stage of the stxitéi