Wipro Finance Ltd. Represented By ... vs I.I.S.C. Engineers Private Ltd. And ... on 8 July, 1998
14. In this case, since the order of attachment has been made absolute, this Court has dismissed the application O.A. No. 169 of 1996. However, this Court has not considered the right of the applicant as to whether he is entitled to seize the machineries from the respondents during the pendency of the suit. If the petitioner is able to establish that, in spite of the order of attachment, the petitioner's claim in the suit may not be satisfied unless the machineries are siezed and further the respondent is only a lessee and without paying the monthly lease amount he is not entitled to keep the machineries with him, always the applicant is entitled to seek for the relief. For that purpose, it is unnecessary to review this order; especially in view of the above said principles laid down by the Apex Court, when no finding has been given with respect to the petitioner's right, it is open to the applicant to file an application afresh for the relief of appointment of Commissioner and pursue the same.