HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.910 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order - XLIII Rules - 1 and 2 of CPC, is directed against an order made in E.A. No.11 of 2005 in E.P. No.27 of 2004 in O.S. No.5050 of 2002 dated 18-08-2005 on the file of the learned III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed by the appellant herein, under Order - XXI Rule - 58(1) and 100(a) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to declare that the attached movable articles mentioned in the schedule of the claim petition are not liable to be attached and they may be redelivered to her, who is original owner of the same, was dismissed. 2. Appellant is claim petitioner and she is daughter of the judgment-debtor, respondent No.2 herein, and respondent No.1 is the decree-holder. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the claim petition (EA). 4. Decree-holder laid the suit in O.S. No.5050 of 2002 for recovery of a sum of Rs.56,000/-. The suit was decreed as prayed for. When the decree was not satisfied, decree-holder filed E.P. No.27 of 2004 for attachment and sale of movable articles and the same was ordered. Thereafter, the present E.A. No.11 of 2005, under order - XXI Rule 5891) and Section 100(a) read with Section 151 of CPC, was filed by the claim petitioner to declare that the attached movables mentioned in the schedule are not liable for attachment and for redelivery of the same to her. 5. It is the case of the claim petitioner that she is running the business of carpentry work under the name and style of M/s. Saritha Carpentry Works at premises No.14-8-541/1, Jummerath Bazar, Hyderabad, from where the petition schedule movables were attached. According to her, she is owner of the said movables and she is having municipal licence and also having purchase bills for the scheduled movable articles. Judgment-debtor has no right or ownership over the attached movables and at the time of execution she was not present, and therefore, the claim petition has to be allowed. 6. A counter has been filed by the decree-holder denying the averments made in the claim petition contending that the claim petitioner is not the owner of the movable articles and the said shop was run by the judgment-debtor since twenty years and he also admitted in his cross-examination in O.S. No.5050 of 2002 that he is the absolute owner of the said shop. The documents filed by the claim petitioner are forged and created one and the claim petition is got filed by the judgment-debtor through his daughter with a view to delay the execution proceedings. 7. None were examined nor any documents were marked. The trial Court after examining the material placed before it, dismissed the claim petition holding as under: “ It is the claim of the claim-petitioner that she is the absolute owner of the attached movables over which the 2nd respondent/JDR has no right, title or ownership over the same an as such, the said movables are not liable to be attached. In support of her claim, the claim-petitioner has filed a xerox copy of municipal licence fee receipt. Though this document is per-se inadmissible being a xerox copy, but even otherwise also, it is only dated 17-3-2005 and the name of the trade is shown only as “R/L Carpenters at column No.2 under “the trade” which is contrary to the case of the claim-petitioner that she is running the business under the name and style of “M/s Saritha Carpentry works”. Therefore, this document which is of recent origin has no relevancy to the claim of the claim-petitioner. To buttress her claim, the claim-petitioner has filed two receipts contending that she purchased the machinery under them which would prove her ownership. However, a bare perusal of those two receipts would only manifestly make it clear that they are issued by Sarla & Company dated 4-1-1999 and are only quotations. They would not at all disclose that the machinery mentioned therein was purchased through the said receipts. No registered or serial number of the machinery is mentioned and on their face, those documents only depict that they are quotations. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the claim-petitioner has purchased the machinery mentioned therein. Even the four rental receipts filed by the claim-petitioner from 5–12-2003, 5-1-2005, 5-4-2005 and 5-7-2005 would only show that rent was received from her for the premises 14- 8-541/1. The claim-petitioner did not chose to enter into the witness box to substantiate her claim nor examined the owner of the said premises that the claim-petitioner is the owner of the movables which were attached in the premises mentioned in those receipts. Thus, as discussed above, none of the above documents filed by the claim-petitioner would conclusively establish that she is their owner and she is in fact, running the business independently without regard to the JDR. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, muchless, reliable evidence, I am inclined to hold that the claim of the claim-petitioner smacks of bonafides and it can only be surmised that she is not the owner of the attached movables. The point is answered accordingly.” 8. This is a case, wherein claim petitioner did not choose to enter into the witness box to substantiate her claim or examine the owner of the shop premises to say that she is the owner of the movable articles, which were attached and mentioned in the receipts. In fact, the documents filed along with the claim petition are not the receipts, but they are all only quotations and apart from the fact that they are photostat copies, which are not admissible in evidence. Even otherwise, contents of the said documents reveal that they do not belong to the claim petitioner. 9. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the claim petition and has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J August 19, 2010. PV