Ashok vs Kushal
2023 Latest Caselaw 66 MP

                                                            1
                          IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                                              ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2023
                                             MISC. PETITION No. 5056 of 2022

                         BETWEEN:-
                         ASHOK S/O LATE SHRI CHANDMALJI SANGHVI, AGED
                         ABOUT     65   YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE/
                         AGRICULTURIST LAXMIBAI MARG, BADNAWAR,
                         DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI NITIN PHADKE, ADVOCATE )

                         AND
                         KUSHAL S/O LATE SHRI CHANDMALJI SARAF, AGED
                         ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS BHATT
                         COLONY AND SHOP SARAF MEDICAL STORE, BUS
                         STAND, BADNAWAR, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS


                               T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

The petitioner has filed the Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 21.9.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Badnawar, District-Dhar in Civil Suit No.33- B/2021,whereby the petitioner/plaintiff's application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for attachment of the house belong to the respondent before the judgment has been rejected.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted the learned Judge of the trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONI RAJU Signing time: 1/3/2023 5:17:37 PM

court has erred in not considering the application under proper perceptive and dismissed the same only on the ground that no case is made out.

On due consideration of the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record including the impugned order dated 21.9.2022, it is found that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned Judge of the trial court on the ground that no other document has been filed in evidence by the petitioner/plaintiff to substantiate the aforesaid application and hence not case for interference is subjected to be made out.

On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that no illegality or

irregularity has been committed by the trial court in rejecting the application of the petitioner, who has not been able to make out any case for interference under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.

In view of the same, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE moni

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONI RAJU Signing time: 1/3/2023 5:17:37 PM