Skip to main content

Attachment Before Judgment: Kerala HC Clarifies That Order On Claim Petition Is Appealable As Decree

The High Court of Kerala has clarified that an order adjudicating a claim over a property under attachment before judgment is appealable as if it was a decree. The clarification was made by a division bench comprising Justice V Chitambaresh and Justice Narayana Pisharadi, answering a reference whether such an order could be challenged in an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The reference was occasioned when the registry refused to assign a number to an original petition filed challenging an order on claim petition, on the ground that it was original petition was not maintainable as the order was appealable. The decision of a single judge in Ali v Muhammadali 1995(2) KLT 225 was cited. However, the single bench overruled the objection of the registry by relying on a decision of division bench in Anto Mamkoottam v Peruvanthanam Service Co-operative Bank 1996(2) KLT 962. In view of the ensuing confusion, the reference to division bench was made.

The division bench noted that as per Order XXXVIII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claim petitions on property under attachment before judgment should be adjudicated in the manner provided for adjudication of claims with respect to property under attachment in execution of a decree. The claims for properties under attachment in execution are to be dealt with as per Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. The orders made under Order XXI Rule 58 have the same force as if it were a decree, as per Rule 58(4). Therefore, an order on claim petition with respect to property under attachment before judgment has the same force as a decree. Therefore, it follows that such an order is appealable in the same manner a decree can be subjected to appeal, as per Section 96 of the CPC.

The division bench also held that the single bench misquoted the decision in Anto Mamkoottam while overruling the objections of the registry.

Reference was made by the division bench to the decision of a full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy v Gunti Yeshodha and Another AIR 2005 AP 95 to arrive at the conclusion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more