CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1990) 11 RAJ CK 0043

Smt. Patasi Bai and Others vs Smt. Baburi and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 28 November 1990 · Citation: (1990) 2 WLN 407

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.R. Arora, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 406 of 1990

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 319 words

B.R. Arora, J.—This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated July 30,1990, passed by the Assistant Collector cum Executive Magistrate, Makrana, by which the learned Executive Magistrate drew a preliminary order and also attached the property. The learned Executive Magistrate also issued notices to the parties to appear before him on August 22, 1990 and to file objections with respect to the order of attachment. The learned Magistrate, also, issued notice directing the parties to file their claim showing their possession over the property in question.

2.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

3.

The learned Magistrate has issued notices to the parties to file their objection, but the petitioners, instead of filing their objections, before the learned Executive Magistrate, filed this miscellaneous petition. When the notices have been issued, directing the parties to file their objection, if any, then it would have been much better I hat the parties should have approached the Executive Magistrate and should have filed their objections and to satisfy the Magistrate that there is no apprehension of reach of peace and should have convinced the Magistrate to drop the proceedings. Even otherwise, also so far as the question of attachment is concerned, by filing the objections, the petitioners could have satisfied the Magistrate to withdraw the order of attachment, as the order passed by the Magistrate was not final. In the order itself, the learned Executive Magistrate has directed the parties to raise objections, if any, with respect to the order of attachment, also. The petitioner may approach the Assistant Collector cum Executive Magistrate, Makrana, and file objections, if any, before him and the learned Executive Magistrate, after hearing the petitioners and the other parties, will consider the matter and proceed according to law.

4.

In this view of the matter, the miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.