AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 20.12.2016, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC was rejected.
It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the property, which was attached belongs to the petitioner, who is father of the judgment-debtor.
Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the Jamabandi. It is contended that the objections of the petitioner are pending before the court below and if in the intervening period, the property is auctioned, the purpose of his filing the objections would be frustrated.
I have considered the contentions of counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order.
Admittedly, a decree was passed in favour of respondent No.1 for recovery of certain amount. Respondent No.2, who happens to be son of the petitioner, was required to pay the decreetal amount, and on non-payment, respondent No.1 has moved for execution, wherein relief for attachment and sale of the residential house has been made.
From perusal of the impugned order, it is made out that there are three houses and the description of the property is also
given. One of the house belongs to the judgment-debtor/respondent No.2, who is son of the petitioner and the said house has been attached. An affidavit asserting the same was filed by the decree-holder. No reply to the said affidavit was filed to dispute the contents of the affidavit filed by the decree-holder.
Consequently, the court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not have a prima facie case to stay the auction proceedings.
From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that no infirmity or irregularity has been committed by the court below.
Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.
The stay application also stands disposed.