:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1543 OF 2006 SUMMONS NO. 1543 OF 2006 SUMMONS NO. 1543 OF 2006 IN IN IN EXECUTION EXECUTION EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2006 IN IN IN HYDERABAD HYDERABAD HYDERABAD SUIT NO. 402 OF 1998 SUIT NO. 402 OF 1998 SUIT NO. 402 OF 1998 Hyderabad Industries Ltd. ...Plaintiff. V/s. M/s. Art Roof India Pvt. Ltd. ... Defendant. And Ajay Lohia & Anr. ... Applicants. Mr. D.D. Juvekar i/b. Khaitan & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr. A.A. Joshi i/b. V.M. Joshi for the Applicant. Mr. S.P. Kanuga for Defendant No.3. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 26TH 26TH 26TH NOVEMBER 2008. NOVEMBER 2008. NOVEMBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This is an application to raise an attachment levied on Flat No.1001, ‘C’ Wing, Inderlok, Opp. Swami Samarth Temple, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 053. The Chamber Summons is moved by Defendant No.3 Aruna Hundraj Bajaj and it is her case that the Suit claim is against Defendant No.1 which has deposited the decreetal amount in Court. The Third Defendant is a house wife. She has been impleaded as party Defendant in her capacity as guarantor. A decree has been passed against Defendant No.1 which is the principal Debtor. :2: 2. Defendant No.2 is the Partner of Defendant No.1. 3. It is stated that the decree has been challenged in Appeal and the Appeal is pending. Both sides do not dispute this fact. 4. During the pendency of the Appeal, the Appellants therein have arranged for deposit of a sum of Rs.15,11,109/-. 5. The Decree Holder’s Advocate does not dispute that this amount is deposited but he stated that the Appeal is pending and the deposit does not satisfy the entire decreetal claim. 6. In the above circumstances, both sides agree that at this stage the attachment in respect of the subject flat be raised. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) by consent. However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion in so far as the merits of the claim of the Third Defendant so also whether the said flat is liable for being attached in execution at the instance of the Decree Holder. As and when the subject Appeal is disposed off but the Decree remains unsatisfied, the Decree Holder will be at liberty to attach the properties of the Judgment Debtors in appropriate proceedings and merely :3: because this Chamber Summons is allowed, does not prevent them from proceeding against the properties and assets of the Defendants in accordance with law. 7. However, it is directed that until further orders, the flat in question and as described above shall not be alienated, disposed off or parted with possession by Defendant No.3, in any manner. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)