CR No. 2995 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 2995 of 2009 Date of decision May 25, 2009 Kewal Krishan ....... Petitioner Versus Bhagwant Rai ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The revision is against the order directing opportunity to be afforded in an application filed by the plaintiff for attachment before judgment. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision petitioner has denied execution of the promissory note and an order directing attachment cannot be a matter of course. There shall be a strong prima facie case shown by the plaintiff and in this case, the improbability of the statement that the instrument sued upon was true was by virtue of the fact that on the very same date when the promissory note was alleged to have been executed, the plaintiff had also obtained a cheque from the defendant and the plaintiff has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiation Instruments Act, 1881 on the dishonour of the cheque. According to him, it was most unlikely that a CR No. 2995 of 2009 2 person could have also executed a promissory note on the same date on which the cheque had been issued in favour of the very same plaintiff. The Courts below have considered the fact of denial of the promissory note but still without directing the attachment of the property only directed the defendant to furnish security in a sum of Rs.1 lac before the Court below within a period of 15 days and making the non-furnishing of security within the time stipulated conditional to attach the property. The lower appellate Court has considered the relevant facts and circumstances before passing the order in the manner in which has been done. The judicial discretion exercised by the proper consideration would require no intervention in revision. 3. The Civil revision is dismissed accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 25, 2009 archana