IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO.-S^^A/2005 PETITIQNER : Firm Karm Cinema, Balco T/S, Tehsil and District Korba, through Its Partner Ashok Kumar Agarwal S/o FatehChand Agarwal, Aged About 45 years, R/o Ring Road, Balco, Korba (C.G.). VERSES RESPONDENTS : 1. Madhya Pradesh Fihn Vikas Nigam, Sansknt Bhavan,Banganga Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 2. Bharat Ali-iminium Company Ltd., Through its General Manager,Balco T/s, Korba(C.G.) 3. Baijnath Sharma,S/o Not Known,Age not known,R/o Shanti Nagar, Balco Nagar, Korba (C.G.). WRtT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^^•sT'-^^s'a |^H^;T'Kr^':ii ^, XI-HC-22 di'^I'^T ^iWsnt^ I aisRT'gi?" III T^ -^Wivi^, waRFis. ra^fray -X k!- P. e^r 5'5'4^, 2OTi' srf^f^RiWi'afttT qiTqferTFI Wwif •? TWi WiRgTC ^.3ife>T3r'^l 15.6.2006 i Shri ftavish Verma, couns^l for, Ihe petitioner. None for respondents. | Heard on LA.No. 3289/?006. Vicleorderdated 17.1,2(^36, thepetitioner was directed to fite amended writ petition and in cojnpliance to -that, alon9 with the instant dppttcation LA.No. 3289/20^6 for condoning the delciy, amended petition has been filed. In viejw of theaforesaid facts and grounds mentioned in the applicationI.^.No. 3289/2006 is allowed. Heard on admission. i 5th Additional &istr'ict Jjudge, Bhopal passed the judgment cmd decree against the petitiorKr^ in favour of respondent No. 1 for paymentofRs.l3.98,433.41p<«i4aand-alsoauthorizedresponclentNo.1 to recover the amount from th^ mortgaged property. The decree was trcnsferred for execution totbe Korba Court in accordance with law ! • ! ! ; • and Korba Court started exe^ution proceeding. In execution, the property of petitioner/judgn^ent-debtor h.as been att-ached for realization of the decretal ampunt. The petitioner objected to the dttachment by fjling an objectjon wherein petitioner raised objection that -(jie list of mortgaged proj^erty duly certified by Bhopal Court has [••ws^figir tL ;':i-HC-22 3TR?ISI TTW^Sigg ?SHWffi?ti' 8Ki ?=? ^"raTi?ra, 's^lwis. ferosy U.l3. Ni, . 6-5~-4-6 ^' miiS^ an^B'yRiiws qipfeqh TWi^i •?"fS7St ^NTSR ^•3felT3T!^i s - not been filed, ttoveabte ()roperty is also athiched with th'e immoveable property i.e. n^ortgaged with the decree holder. Therefore, only symbolical atfachment was possibte wherais actual atl'achment h<xs been effecte^ ond after attachment, the property has been given on 'supurdnam^' to a third person, hence judgment- debtor is debarred from utiliJEing his property. Leamed executing Court after dye hearing, pas^d the impugned order on 25.2.2002 whereby the objection filed by^ judgment- debtor/petitioner has been mjected. Being dissatisfiedjjvith the order, this writ petition has been filed. 1 When an objection unde^ Order 21 Rule 58 of -the C.P.C. against any attachment has been filedjond is disposed of by judicial order by the Executing Court, the scjid order has an effect of decree, therefore, if aggrieved, objedtor may file dppail in accorcktnce wi-rti law, or take steps inaccordancje with Order2t Rule 58(5) of the CPC which authorizes the objector) to file civil .suit to establish his right, but instead of doing so in ac.cordance with common law, the petitioner/judgment-debtor hc^s approdched this Courtunder Artjcle 226/227 of the ^nstitution o-^ India. [•iftif 5;fe?i XI-HC-22 311^1 qn NSI^I ^SRTlrfCT te. '-V p' . ^S[ ^ffqi?Fl, ^•dl+l-lg. ^^_^:,...;;..££.A6. sn^i-s^iiwgil^ "C!FCT •?feA Ti^R?R ^; aiRpl 3Tit?l ind It is pertinentto mentio|i that the decree has been passed on 2 doy of &ec®mbe(',l99'6. th^e. -than 9 yeaps httve been passed but the decretal dmount has tiot been paid by the judgment- debtor/petitioner who is bound|to obey the order of the Gourt auid to >> satisfy the decree. j From petition itself,it i^ clear that the att-ached immoveable property is mortgaged property. Therefore, whether certified copy of listof mortgaged property h|os been filed or not is immaterial. If inimoveable property consistsof moveablealso has been attached cnd given on sypurdnoma, to tnyopi^ion.the cffition taten by the Court is not aich, which may catl forj interference by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. In view of theabove, the writ petition'filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed OT liminea^d isaccordingly dismissed. Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge