Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdev Singh vs Rajiv Kumar Etc on 12 January, 2012
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
C.R. No. 187 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 187 of 2012
Date of Decision: January 12, 2012
Jagdev Singh
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Rajiv Kumar etc.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
The objections filed by the petitioner challenging the attachment of a property in money decree claiming right, title and interest in the property stand dismissed by the impugned order. An order of attachment of the property is deemed to be a decree which is appealable as per provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 (4) CPC. The impugned order can also be challenged by a separate suit under Order 21 Rule 58(5) CPC. Regarding the maintainability of appeal, a reference can be made to the judgment in Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs. Gunti Yashoda and another, AIR 2005 C.R. No. 187 of 2012 [2] AP 95, wherein it has been held that an order like impugned order challenging the attachment is an appealable order. The relevant extract of the said Full Bench judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"All questions, including those relating to right, title or interest in the attached property, are required to be decided by the same Court and not by separate suit. Indirectly an application filed under Rule 58 is conferred the status of a suit. The necessity to file a suit, in relation to such claims, would arise, if only the executing Court refuses to entertain the claims or objections. The grounds for not entertaining the claims or objections are confined to those enumerated under proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 58. The nature of disposal to be given to the claims or objections, filed under sub-rule (1), is indicated in sub-rule (3). Under sub-rule (4), the order passed on such claims or objections, is to have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as if it were a decree, for the purpose of preferring the appeal and other related matters. The intention of the Legislature in extending the force of a decree, to an order passed under Rule 58, particularly in the context of appeal, is very clear......
Once it emerges that an order passed under Rule 58 of Order 21 is conferred the status of a decree, in the particular context of appeal, S.96 gets attracted. Section C.R. No. 187 of 2012 [3] 96 does not enumerate the types of decrees that can fall into its fold. Once the outcome of adjudication partakes the character of a decree, it gains an entry into the realm of S.96. The plea raised by the petitioner that the appeals provided for under S.96 are against original decrees and not other kinds of decrees is unacceptable. The word "original" in the heading of S.96 signifies the jurisdiction, i.e. original jurisdiction in contradistinction to appellate jurisdiction......
Therefore, when S.96 CPC specifically provides for appeals against decrees, Order 21 Rule 58 (4) directs that the order passed under sub-rule (3) thereof shall have the force of a decree, there hardly exists any basis to deny such characteristics to such an order. An interpretation to the contrary would have the effect of setting at naught, the intention of the Parliament in attributing characteristics of a decree to an order. In view of a clear mandate under sub-rule (4) of Rule 58, an order passed under sub-rule (3) thereof, partakes a character of a decree for all practical purposes, more so, in the context of availing the remedy of appeal." In view of the ratio of the said judgment, the revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal in accordance with law. It will be open to the petitioner to C.R. No. 187 of 2012 [4] avail the protection of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for seeking the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
January 12, 2012 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE