Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXI, R.53 & O. XXXVIII, R. 5---Suit for recovery of amount--­Plaintiff's plea was that he and defendant as partners in business were jointly entitled to certain amount from a third party---Defendant obtained money decree against third party without impleading plaintiff as party--­Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for recovery of his share in decretal amount alongwith application under O.XXI, R. 53, C.P.C. for attachment of money decree--Trial Court dismissed application--­Validity---Such application would not be competent in a separate and independent suit for recovery of money---Such application would be maintainable before Executing Court, where money decree was under process against third party---Powers under O.XXI, R.53, C.P.C., were exercisable by Court while executing motley decree and not by Court while exercising its original civil jurisdiction in an independent suit--­Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction could pass order of attachment before of a property belonging to defendant only on fulfilment of conditions mentioned in O.XXXVIII, R.5, C.P.C.---High Court dismissed revision petition. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Petitioner. ORDER The petitioner, brought a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.32,54,229 against the respondents claiming that, he and the respondents were conducting the business in partnership and were jointly entitled to certain amount from the Municipal Committee, Okara, but respondents Nos. 1 to 4, without impleading the petitioner, filed a suit for recovery against the Municipal Committee and procured a decree to the tune of Rs.65,08,458.09, in which, the petitioner has the half share, hence the suit. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order XXI, rule 53 of C.P.C. was moved by the petitioner, seeking attachment of the decree, which application has been dismissed through the impugned order for the reasons that, the petitioner had earlier filed some suit for rendition of accounts, which was subsequently, dismissed for want of evidence; appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed; the petitioner was aware of the suit, which has been decreed and never applied to…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492