1 app448.08.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 448 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 222 OF 2007 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 228 OF 2006 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 807 OF 2002. VESTOLIT Gmbh & Co KG ....Appellants. Vs. Glomore Construction & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Kedar Wagle for the Appellants. Snehal Shah a/w Ms. Jyoti Ghag i/by M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Respondents. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 22 SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- By this Appeal, the Appellants challenge the order dated 25 July 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Chamber Summons No. 222 of 2007. By that order the learned Single Judge 2 app448.08.sxw ssm has lifted the order of attachment which was earlier made. The facts have been narrated in detail by the learned Single Judge and therefore, it is not necessary for us to repeat. 2 We have perused the judgments which have been relied on by the learned Single Judge in her judgment namely the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vannaarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan Vs. Chandramaath Balakrishnan & Anr. (1990) 3 SCC 291 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rango Ramchandra Kulkarni Vs. Gurlingappa Chinnappa Muthal & Ors. AIR 1941 Bom. 198. It appears that as there is admittedly an agreement to develop the property in favour of the Respondents and as the title has not admittedly passed to the Respondents, there could have been an order of attachment but the person for whose benefit attachment has been levied could claim only unpaid amount of consideration. The learned Single Judge in the present case has recorded a clear finding that the entire amount of consideration has been paid. That finding is not disputed before us. If that is so, continuation of the attachment on the property would serve no purpose. If the decree holder will not be able to sell the property to recover the decretal amount the continuation of the attachment of the 3 app448.08.sxw ssm property will not serve any purpose. When property is attached in execution the purpose is to sell the property for recovering the decretal amount. 3 In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, no useful purpose will be served by interfering in the order impugned. The Appeal is accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)