C.R. No. 555 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 555 of 2010 Date of Decision : 30.6.2010 Vivek Behl .......... Petitioner Versus Gurdial Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.1.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Pehowa, vide which application moved by the petitioner under Section 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment of the property to secure the decree to be passed in favour of the petitioner stands declined. The petitioner filed an application under Section 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment of the property to secure the decree, which was likely to be passed in favour of the petitioner in a recovery suit. The application was contested. The learned trial Court found, that the alienation of the property, which was sought to be attached, had already been stayed C.R. No. 555 of 2010 -2- by the Court, therefore, there was hardly any reason for the petitioner to move an application under Section 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the finding of the learned trial Court cannot be sustained, as the petitioner was entitled to attachment of the property to protect his right of recovery under the decree. On consideration, I find no force in this contention. Once the alienation of the property has already been stayed, which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, therefore, there is hardly any reason for the petitioner to dispute the order passed by the learned trial Court. No merit. Dismissed. 30.6.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE