C. R. No. 6948 OF 2006. Present : Mr.V.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondent No.1. ******* The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,87,271/-. Respondent No.4, the State Bank of India, Jagadhri was impleaded as a party, as the petitioner had also prayed that respondents No.1 to 3 be restrained from alienating their residential house No.21/5, Shri Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, which was mortgaged with the bank. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application, under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC praying for attachment of the aforementioned property. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, vide order, dated 14.9.2006 dismissed the application on the ground that the property stood mortgaged (though wrongly recorded in the order as hypothecated) with the bank. The appeal, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide order, dated 14.10.2006. However, in another appeal, namely, Civil Misc Appeal No. 100 of 20.10.2005, apparently arising from an order, passed on the application, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, in the same suit, the District Judge, Yamunagar at Jagadhri on 6.1.2006, passed the following order :- “ Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 states that the bank has since recovered the outstanding loan amount from respondents no.1 to 3 and the proceedings initiated by the bank for the recovery of the CR No.6948 of 2006 : 2 : said amount have already been withdrawn from the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the bank has already returned the sale-deed as well as other relevant documents to respondents no.1 to 3. A perusal of the file would reveal that respondents no.1 to 3 have already been proceeded against exparte. It seems that the respondents no.1 to 3 have not put in appearance so as to defeat the case of the appellant. In view of the above, I restrain the respondents no.1 to 3 to alienate the property which was earlier mortgaged with the bank to secure the loan amount. Now to come up on 3.2.2006 for arguments as there is no ground to prepone the hearing.” A perusal of the aforementioned order discloses that respondents No.1 to 3 have settled their dispute with the bank and the mortgage has come to an end. The bank has withdrawn its case from the Debt Recovery Tribunal and has returned the sale deed of House No.21/5, Shri Nagar Colony, Jagadhri to respondents No.1 to 3. These facts are not denied by counsel for respondent No.4-State Bank of India, Jagadhri. Despite service, no one had put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and consequently, they were proceeded against exparte, vide order, dated May 31, 2007. In view of the changed circumstances, namely, that the property, sought to be attached, is no longer mortgaged with the bank, it would be appropriate to direct the learned trial Court to decide the application for attachment afresh, in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the facts, noticed herein above. Consequently, the CR No.6948 of 2006 : 3 : present revision petition is allowed and the orders, dated 14.9.2006 and 14.10.2006 are set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the application, filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC afresh, and in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) January 08, 2008. JUDGE `kk'