Gurnam Singh vs Bant Singh

G.R. Majithia, J.—The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the execution application was dismissed as withdrawn. Resultantly, the attachment of the tractor ceased when the execution application was dismissed as withdrawn. The Superdar ought to have been directed to hand over the tractor to the judgment debtor, the executing Court acted illegally in issuing notice to the decree-holder for January 24,1990. The notice was issued in ignorance of the mandatory provisions of Order XXI Rule 57 sub-rule(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 57 of Order XXI envisages that when an execution application is dismissed, the attachment shall be deemed to have ceased unless the Court directs otherwise. In the instant case, the Court, when dismissed the execution application, did not issue any directions that attachment has not to lapse. Resultantly, I direct the Superdar to hand over the tractor to the judgment-debtor against a valid receipt. The Superdar will file the receipt the Court. This petition is disposed of accordingly.