Civil Revision No. 4751 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4751 of 2009 Date of decision : May 25, 2010 Gurmukh Singh ....Petitioner versus M/s Dhillon Traders and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. PS Baath, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff Gurmukh Singh has filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 16.5.2009, Annexure P/5, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ropar, thereby dismissing plaintiff's application, Annexure P/3, moved under Order 38 Rule 5 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) for attachment of the property of defendants before judgment. Petitioner has filed suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs 1,91,637/- i.e. Rs 1,31,285/- as principal amount and Rs 60352/- as interest thereon @ 2% per month. The plaintiff alleged in application Annexure P/3 that defendants are about to dispose of their share in the land mentioned in the application and to remove the whole of their property to deprive the execution of the decree that is to be passed in the suit. Civil Revision No. 4751 of 2009 -2- Consequently, attachment of the property of defendants before judgment was sought. The application was resisted by the defendants by filing reply Annexure P/4. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/5 dismissed the plaintiff's application for attachment before judgment. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the defendants are about to dispose of their property and to remove the same and therefore, attachment of their property before attachment should be ordered. The contention cannot be accepted. Perusal of the application Annexure P/3 moved by the plaintiff for attachment of property of the defendants before judgment reveals that in paragraph 3 of the application, the plaintiff has simply reiterated the language of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. Except reiterating the same, nothing else has been averred to entitle the plaintiff to seek attachment of property of the defendants before judgment. It appears that the application Annexure P/3 was also not accompanied by affidavit. Averments made therein do not make any case for attachment of property of the defendants before judgment which cannot be ordered in routine. It may be added that in plaint Annexure P/1, the plaintiff himself claimed that defendant no. 2 had taken the amount as Amanat without interest and the plaintiff demanded back the amount without interest but in spite thereof the plaintiff has claimed huge amount of interest in the suit at a very high rate of 2% per month. Civil Revision No. 4751 of 2009 -3- For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The plaintiff has miserably failed to make out a case for ordering attachment of property of defendants before judgment. The revision petition is devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 25, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'