Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhagirath Gayari vs Bagdiram on 21 July, 2023

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                      1
                 IN        THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT INDORE
                                                 BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                          ON THE 21 st OF JULY, 2023
                                       MISC. PETITION No. 1522 of 2022

               BETWEEN:-
               BHAGIRATH GAYARI S/O KARULAL GAYRI, AGED
               ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. SONADI, TEHSIL MANASA,
               DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
               (BY MS. ARCHANA KHER - ADVOCATE)

               AND
               BAGDIRAM   S/O RATANLALJI JAT KHADAWADA,
               MANASA, TEHSIL MANASA TEHSIL MANASA, DISTT.
               NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
               (BY SHRI ANSHUL SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

                          This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
               following:
                                                       ORDER

Heard.

2. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Executing Court whereby his objection under Order 21 Rule 58 of the CPC made in respect of his tractor which has been seized in execution of a decree has been rejected on the ground that the same had been got attached by him alone by stating that the judgment debtor, his son, is joint with him and it is he Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH himself who had subsequently received the said tractor on suprudginama.

3. Under the provisions of Section 60 of the CPC, it is only the property 2 belonging to the judgment debtor which is liable for attachment and sale in execution of the decree or over which or over the profit of which he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefits. The award which has been passed which is being executed as a decree is against Vinod who though is son of the petitioner but the petitioner is not a party to the award hence he cannot be termed to be a judgment debtor within the meaning of Section 60 of the CPC.

4. From the documents which have been brought on record it is evident that the tractor bearing registration No.M.P. 44 - AA - 8842 which has been seized is owned by the petitioner and it is not a case of joint ownership of him along with his, the judgment debtor. The petitioner was not a party to the claim case hence cannot be termed to be a judgment debtor. Hence only for the reason that he had got his tractor seized earlier and had thereafter taken back the same on suprudginama, his objection to the attachment of such tractor could not have been rejected.

5. Thus since the petitioner is the owner of the tractor which has been seized but he is not a judgment debtor in the proceedings, the impugned order passed by the executing Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The application under Order 21 Rule 58 dated 20.9.2021 filed by the petitioner stands allowed.

6. The petition is accordingly, allowed and disposed off.

(PRANAY VERMA) Signature Not Verified JUDGE SS/-