yc ^J.^'^Si^ . ^:K^-S^:-""" ^^^' \fa4-'-^"r ^lst.t & ^ 1 -3V IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G, AT^ILASFUR W.P.(C). No. ^30'^ OF 2008 PETITIONER Tejram Patel, S/o Late Jailal Patel, Aged about 63 years, Caste- Agharia, R/o Village-Patperpali, Post Bhithidih, Tahsil-Pithaura, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1 ^EWEO-^^ ^ ^2. Anirit Lal Patel, S/o Ayodhya Prasad Patel, Aged about 42 Years R/0 Pithaura, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Horilal Patel, S/o Tajram Patel, Aged about 37 years, R/o Village- Patporpal, Post Bhithidih, Tahsil- Pithaura, Distriet-Mahasamund ,(C.G.) Statiori House Offlcer, Police Station Pithaura, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Narendra Banchhore, Station House Officer, Police Station Pithaura, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 226/227 OF THE raTUTION OF INDIA ~"\ ;:^1 'f-s.^ ^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P. (C)No. 6907/2008 Tejram Patel Versus RESPONDENTS Amrit Lal Patel and others SB:- HON'BLESHRIN.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate forthe respondent No. 1. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer, for the State. ^ ORAL ORDER (10-3-2011) 1. The order of attachm.ent of tractor bearing registration No. CG.06-ZX 0901 and trolley No. CG.06-ZX 0902 by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 1-B/2Q04 is under assail by way of instant petition. 2. Facts pf the case according to the petitioner are that respondent No. 1/deeree holder Eled a money suit against judgment debtor Horilal. The suit was decreed.In execution, leamed court below attached the tractor and trolley in question. 3. According to the petitioner, he is registered owner of the tractor and trolley in question and the same cannot be attached in execution of tih.e decree against the respondent No. 2 and the same has wrongly been attached. ^. ShriPatel, learned counsel for the respondent No. l/ decree holder would submit, in fact, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are father and son living jointly, also holding the tractor and trolley in question as itsljoint owner. In view of above, the trial court has not eomraitfed any illegality in attaching the above tractor arid trolley; &7 7. I have heard leamed counsel for theparties and perused the order impugned. It is not disputed that the questioned tractor and ta-olley is registered in the name of petitioner. In order to attach the tractor and trolley, the trial court has to first decide its ownership as joint ownership of petitioner and respondent No. 2 and only thereafter the said tractor and trolley can be attached. Therefore, the order impugned being notsustainable in law deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The petition is allowed. However, the respondent/deeree holder is free to move appUcation before the coiirt below for attachment of the tractor and trolley in question showingjoint ownership ofjudgment debtor as well as of the petitioner. 7: Sdl- ^^ sva1 :^. !/ S"!-