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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more