AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.V.S. Rao, J.—All these civil revision petitions arise in relation to an order of attachment before Judgment passed by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah in IA No.675 of 2000 on 22-9-2000. It is therefore convenient to dispose of all these revision petitions by a common order.
One Bigivemula Laxmikanthamma (the plaintiff) filed a suit against one Mandi Subba Rayudu (the defendant) for recovery of a sum of Rs.67,320.00. The plaintiff also filed an applications under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code for brevity) seeking attachment before judgment of the lorry allegedly owned by the defendant, bearing registration No.AP-21-U-3559. The trial Court by order dated 22-9-2000 directed the defendant to furnish security, failing which the lorry would be attached. Accordingly the said lorry was attached.
The petitioner in these civil revision petitions, Shaik Maqbool Basha filed two interlocutory applications being IA Nos.685 and 684 of 2000. The first application under Order XXXVIII , Rule 8 of the Code is filed for raising the attachment and the second application is filed u/s 151 of the Code for suspension of the operation of the order dated 22-9-2000 passed in IA No.675 of 2000, which is still pending.
In support of I.A.No. 684 of 2000 the petitioner alleged that he purchased the lorry in question under an agreement dated : 6-8-2000 from one Sriramulu Reddy. He paid an advance amount of Rs. 75,116.00 and the balance amount is to be paid in installments, total consideration being Rs.2,75,116.00. He also stated before the lower Court that he has a transport contract with a Chennai based fertiliser company and if he does not fulfill the conditions of contract with the said company, he has to pay an amount of Rs. 350.00 per day, as damages. It is also to be noticed that Sriramulu Reddy, the alleged vendor of the petitioner, purchased the lorry from Mandi Subbarayudu, the defendant in the suit. However, the petitioner claims ownership by virtue of agreement dated : 6-8-2000 and a xerox copy of the Registration Certificate of the lorry in question is filed.
The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The agreement dated 6-8-2000 was brought into existence after the order of attachment before judgment was passed and that Sriramulu Reddy, the alleged vendor of the petitioner, himself, has no right or title to the lorry.
The lower Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner''s claim to the ownership of the lorry, which is based on an agreement dated 6-8-2000 entered into with Sreeramulu Reddy is not proved. Thus, the lower Court rejected the entry made in the Registration Certificate on the ground that the same creates a doubt as to the ownership of Sriramulu Reddy. The lower Court directed an Advocate-Commissioner to verify as to whether the lorry is readily loaded with fertilizers. The Advocate-Commissioner conducted spot inspection and reported within an hour stating that the rear wells, battery and pump set of the lorry were removed. Taking all these factors into consideration, the lower Court dismissed the application. Against this order dated 29-9-2000, the CRP No. 4199 of 2000 is filed.
On 29-9-2000, the plaintiff again filed two interlocutory applications being IA.No. 702 of 2000 for reattachment of the lorry and I.A.No. 1703 of 2000 seeking police aid for execution of the warrant of attachment. In both these applications, the petitioner herein is not made a party. However, these two applications were allowed by the lower Courts on 29-9-2000. CRP (SR) No. 73260 of 2000 is filed against the order in I.A.No. 702 of 2000 and CRP(SR) No. 73264 of 2000 is filed against the order in I.A.No. 703 of 2000. As the petitioner herein was not arranged as a respondent to these interlocutory applications, he filed CMP Nos. 18763 and 18674 of 2000 seeking leave of this Court to file these civil revision petitions.
Section 115 of the Code confers suo motu powers of revision of the orders passed by the lower Courts. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court can also entertain revisions filed by the aggrieved parties, who are not the original parties to the suit if the suit itself is disposed of. But, for every person who is adversely affected by an order passed in an interlocutory application finally disposing of the proceedings, the remedy of revision u/s 115 of the Code does not lie. This is especially so, when the proceedings are disposed of in an interlocutory application; but not in a suit. However, an adversely effected party is not without any remedy in law. It is well settled that any order passed by the lower Court or the Tribunal subordinate to the High Court or a judicial body, is subject to the supervision and superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, subject, to, however, the aggrieved party pleading and proving before this Court the miscarriage of justice. Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner herein does not dispute this position. He accordingly seeks permission to convert the C.R.P. (SR) Nos.73260 and 73264 of 2000 into the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also undertakes to pay the requisite Court fee and comply with all other formalities. Accordingly liberty is given to the learned Counsel to convert CRP(SR) Nos.73260 and 73264 of 2000 into revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
On the merits of the case, the point that arises for consideration in these revision petitions is as to whether the lower Court is justified in declining to suspend the order of attachment before judgment dated 22-9-2000?
Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the lorry which is attached before judgment. It is not denied that Mandi Subbarayudu was the original owner. Whether Sreeramulu Reddy is the owner by virtue of a valid transfer the lower Court recorded a finding that the agreement dated: 6-8-2000, as well as the Registration Certificate of the lorry in question do not support the case of the petitioner herein. Indeed, the lower Court on a perusal of the Xerox copy of the Registration Certificate recorded a finding that the name of the vendor Sreeramulu Reddy is not shown in the Registration Certificate. The other aspects of the matter, whether there is any relative hardship to the third party, who is allegedly the bona fide purchaser, on the ground that he has contractual obligation to discharge, the lower Court rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he did not file any receipt to show the delivery of the consignment at Kurnool and the report of the Advocate-Commissioner would show that the lorry is not loaded with fertilizers. There cannot be any serious objection to the findings recorded by the lower Court.
Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, however, submits that if the lorry is attached and taken to the Court the same would not be in the interest of either the plaintiff or the third party, who is the petitioner herein Therefore, he submits that attachment of the lorry be raised subject to the further orders to be passed in IA.No. 685 of 2000, the application filed by the petitioner under order XXXVIII Rule 8 of the Code. This is, however, seriously opposed by Sri Prakash Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.
A reading of the order dated 28-9-2000 made in IA No.684 of 2000 shows that on 22-9-2000 the lower Court passed a conditional order of attachment. The lorry was attached because Mandi Subbarayudu failed to furnish security as directed by the lower Court in its order dated 22-9-2000. Order XXXVIII , Rule 8 of the Code provides that where any claim is preferred to property attached before judgment such claim shall be adjudicated upon in the manner herein before provided for the adjudication of claims to property attached in execution of a decree for the payment of money. Therefore, the law provides sufficient guide-lines for deciding the issues. Order XXI , Rule 55 of the Code provides that where the amount decreed with costs and all the charges and expenses resulting from the attachment of any property are paid into the Court, the attachment shall be deemed to be withdrawn. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that his client is willing to furnish security for satisfying the decree that might result after trial should be given due consideration in the light of the law.
The case of the petitioner that he has a transport contract with a Chennai based Fertiliser company and that he has to suffer daily damages for non compliance with the conditions of contract, at this stage, cannot be ruled out, especially when IA.No. 685 of 2000 filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 of the Code is still pending before the lower Court.
In the result the three civil revision petitions are disposed of. There shall be an order of suspension of the order of attachment before judgment made in I.A.No. 675 of 2000 dated 22-9-2000, subject to the petitioner herein depositing an amount of Rs. 30,000.00 (Rupees Thirty thousand only) in cash to the credit of O.S.No. 588 of 2000 and furnish security for another amount of Rs. 40,000.00 (Rupees Forty thousand only) to the satisfaction of the lower Court. The petitioner herein shall also give an undertaking to the lower Court to the effect that the lorry bearing registration No.AP-21-U-3559 shall not be sold or encumbered in any manner during the pendency of I.A.No.675 of 2000. The lower Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No. 685 of 2000 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. The petitioner is permitted to deposit the amount and furnish the security within two weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.