It was numbered that the numberice of attachment was personally served on Dr. Gupta.
However, numberdeposit was made.
Even if it is held that they were trespassers, they cannot be evicted except with due process of law.
on the said amount from the date of the suit till the date of payment.
The IV Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed a judgment and decree in terms of the prayers as numbered above.
1 has any adjudicable interest in the proceedings.
45,491.
Post dated cheques were issued by him in respect of quarterly instalments which were dishonoured.
Learned Single Judge by order dated 5.8.2003 held that the order appointing the receiver is one of the modes of the execution of decree under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC.
The respondent No.
1 in respect of the properties where it claimed to be the tenant.
On 4.3.2003, fresh tabular statement along with supporting affidavits was filed by the appellant with the leave of the Court and companyies were served on respondent No.
Admittedly, respondent No.
Her application to be impleaded as a party in the present proceedings was rejected.
1 stating therein that it is a public limited companypany incorporated in 1995 with an authorized share capital of rupees two crores.
15/1998.
In the tabular statement certain flats were shown as immovable properties to be brought to sale for satisfaction of the decree.
1 was number the owner of the flats and the owner of the flats had number companye forward with any claim or objection to attachment of the property.
20,91,319 from respondent No.
At numberpoint of time she had pressed a claim of being the owner of the property.
G.A. No.
By order dated 5.3.2003, a learned Single Judge directed attachment of the properties mentioned in companyumn 10 of the tabular statement filed with the affidavit dated 4.3.2003 with leave of the Court.
The application was rejected by order dated 21.3.2000 on the ground that perusal of records revealed that suit summons were received and numberice of attachment was also received.
The claim of the plaintiff appellant, according to it, arose on account of number payment of the aforesaid sum which was companyered by a demand promissory numbere dated 20.3.1995 executed by aforesaid Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta in favour of the plaintiff and thereby acknowledging the liability against the value received.
In support of the appeals, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that a new dimension has been given by the Division Bench.
The companypany only claimed to be a tenant.
The appellant plaintiff moved for execution of the decree which was transmitted to the Calcutta High Court being Execution Case No.
An opportunity was given to the parties to file affidavits.
The companypany has taken over the business of Calcutta Medical Centre which was the proprietary companycern of Dr. Gupta.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Appellant filed a suit in the companyrt of IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of Rs.
Since the receiver was appointed without numberice to the Company, the substantial rights and interest over the properties as tenants were being affected.
The matter has assumed the proportions of a full blown suit although a suit there shall number be put a trial on evidence in the execution Court itself on the basis of the 1976 amendments of the Code.
No claims of the nature set forth by the respondent No.
Stand of the appellant is that pursuant to the said orders symbolic possession was taken by the receiver on 26.3.2003.
Prema Gupta had at numberpoint of time companye to Court claiming that she was the landlady in respect of the properties which were claimed to be rented out to the companypany.
In response, learned companynsel for respondent No.
Dr. Gupta was directed to deposit half of the decretal amount and companyts within 8 weeks.
1 submitted that what they were interested is number determination of any ownership rights.
The companypany is a tenant under Mrs. Prema Gupta, mother of Dr. Gupta.
Though summons were served, he did number enter appearance and also did number file any application for leave to defend the suit.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta entered appearance in the said execution petition.
The appellant filed affidavits in opposition to the intervention application highlighting several aspects.
2 Dr. Gupta.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
1 can be examined in terms of Section 47 or Order 21 Rule 58 CPC.
On 11.1.1999 a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed an order of injunction restraining said Dr. Gupta from alienating, dealing with or disposing of any of the properties companytained in Schedule A. B and C of tabular statement filed along with Execution Petition.
On 22.1.1999, Dr. Gupta filed a petition purportedly under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC before the trial Court to set aside the ex parte decree and order dated 21.8.1996.
Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court setting aside the order passed by a learned Single Judge and directing the parties to place their respective stands before the Execution companyrt as regards the claim made by respondent No.
20,91,319 b and future interest at the agreed rate of 36 p.a.
1 claimed its tenancy from Mrs. Prema Gupta.
2 a proprietary companycern represented by its proprietor Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta under Order 37 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC inter alia with the following prayers a a decree for Rs.
The said demand promissory numbere indicated the aggregate amount of quarterly instalments agreed to be paid by Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta.
Against the said order, two appeals were filed before the Calcutta High Court and as numbered above, the High Court set aside the order of learned Single Judge.
It accepted the request of the appellant herein for police assistance to the receiver for obtaining vacant possession.
It was clearly stated that there was numbertenancy as claimed and in any event Smt.
Challenging the said order, a Civil Revision Petition No.
1 does number claim any right of ownership over the attached properties.
It was however indicated in the order that if the judgment debtor pays the decretal amount to the receiver within four weeks from the date of order the receiver would number take any further steps in respect of the properties.
3041 of 2000 was filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court which was disposed of on 29.9.2000.
Cost of the suit was assessed at Rs.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has enlarged the scope of the execution proceedings and has treated it as a full blown suit without even recording any reason as to how the respondent No.
It was claimed in the petition that Calcutta Medical Centre was a proprietary companycern and Dr. Gupta was the proprietor and that he had numberknowledge of the suit proceedings.
Application was filed for extension of time to deposit the amount.
3156 of 2003 was filed by respondent No.
