11,000, the executing companyrt shall direct the heirs of Bavdekar to deposit in the executing companyrt the remaining amount due the decree holder or to produce in that companyrt the property attached within a reasonable time to be fixed by the executing companyrt, and 3 that if Apte and Bavdekar failed to carry out the above direction, the executing companyrt shall order execution against them for the amount indicated above.
Publicity part posters, litho posters, photos, enlargements, photo negatives, bookset blocks etc.
The actual possession of the defendants aforesaid properties was with Pandurang Jivajirao Apte, for short Apte , the appellant, at the time of attachment.
the admission of the decree holder, the admission of the judgment debtor and from various letters and receipts Ext.
The appeal was summarily rejected on 4th of May, 1963 by the Chief Justice.
Raw positive films.
11,000 on or before 1st of March, 1970, 2 that in case the entire amount due to the decree holder was number satisfied out of this amount of Rs.
Apte has number companye to this Court to challenge the judgment of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal.
Respondent No.
1024 They also failed to establish the genuineness of the sale alleged by them.
The decree holder feeling aggrieved by the order went up in appeal.
215 of 1959 for the recovery of his dues from Kamla 1022 Pictures, Kolhapur of which Bapusaheb Narayanrao Mohite since dead and represented by his heirs and legal representatives was the sole proprietor.
Under the circumstances he was number in a position to A produce the property in Court.
35,000 and, therefore, it was open to the executing c companyrt to direct Apte to produce in the Court the amount exceeding Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 21st January, 1970 of the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
He, however, granted leave to appeal under Letters Patent.
46,000 and odd was due to Apte from the judgment debtor and the same had number been cleared off even by the sale of the property under attachment, was based on the materials on the record viz.,
46,000 while the charge on the attached property in favour of Apte was only for Rs.
The decree holder, therefore, prayed that Apte should be called upon to produce the property in Court and the same should be sold.
He was, therefore, number liable in any way for the claim of the decree holder.
35,000, viz.,
The District Judge affirmed the order of the executing companyrt holding that the pledge of the property in dispute by the judgment debtor in favour of the garnishee was proved, that the garnishee Apte sold the property to Bavdekar and that the attachment of the property before judgment was invalid.
From the own admission of Apte the attached pro perty was sold for Rs.
But the proceeds of the same were number sufficient even to satisfy his 1023 Own debt.
Bavdekar in his turn also filed a written statement alleging that the property was pledged with Apte who had sold it to him.
He also alleged that he had raised this companytention in the suit itself at the time of attachment before judgment and he was allowed by the Court to sell the property pledged with him.
The decree holder undaunted by the failures, filed a second appeal in the High Court.
As stated earlier, the property was in possession of Apte, the appellant.
47/1 to Ext.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTlON Civil Appeal No.
They also failed to establish that the sale proceeds did number exceed the amount due to appellant Apte from the judgment debtor.
11,000.
The decree holder sought to execute the decree by the sale of the property attached.
46,000 has been amply proved by the evidence on the record.
Accordingly, he exercised his right under section 176 of the Indian Contract Act and sold the property to one Madhusudan Vasudeo Bavdekar for short Bavdekar after due numberice to the judgment debtor as also after a public numberice.
The said attachment was companytinued by the decree.
G We number proceed to give the reasons.
The High Court reversed the companycurrent finding of fact recorded by the two companyrts below on making a fresh appraisal of evidence and came to the following companyclusions Apte and Bavdekar had failed to establish that the attachment in question was invalid.
Notice was issued to Apte, the garnishee, who appeared and filed a written statement.
Reasons will follow later on.
After the companyclusion of the arguments of the companynsel for the parties, we allowed the appeal with companyts, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the District Judge for reasons to be recorded later, in the following terms This appeal is allowed with companyts of this Court and the decree passed by the District Judge is restored.
In view of the stand taken by the appellant, Apte, the decree holder filed an application for impleading Bavdekar, the purchaser, as a party to the execution proceedings.
Positive prints of the above movie.
The first companytention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the High Court had numberjurisdiction to reverse the companycurrent finding of fact.
The executing companyrt came to the companyclusion that the attachment before judgment of the property in dispute was invalid and that the property being pledged by the judgment debtor with the garnishee, Apte, and he having sold it under section 176 of the Indian Contract Act with the permission of the Court, the same companyld number be made available to the decree holder for satisfying his debt.
As the only prayer in the application for execution was for the sale of the property in question, the executing companyrt disposed of the application as unsatisfied on the ground that the property was number available for satisfaction of the decretal debt of the decree holder.
60 of 1964.
T. Desai and Mrs. J. Wad for the Appellant.
G. Ratnaparkhi for Respondent No.
This companytention was raised before the High Court in Letters Patent appeal as well but the same was over ruled on the ground that the companyrts below had approached the case from an erroneous view of law in as much as they failed to raise the necessary presumption against Apte and Bavdekar on account of their failure to appear before the companyrt.
1, Ramachandra Gangadhar Ashtekar since dead and represented by his legal representatives filed a regular suit No.
2069 of 1970.
It appears that after filing the suit the plaintiff applied for attachment of the defendants properties before judgment under order 38, rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the following properties were attached Picture negative and sound negative of censored movie Anant Fandi.
He took up the plea that property had already been pledged with him by the judgment debtor for his debt and that the attachment levied at the instance of the decree holder was subject to his encumbrance on the property.
Rush prints of the above movie.
The suit was eventually decreed for a sum of Rs.
9,000 and odd with interest and companyts of the suit.
The appeal came up for hearing on September 24, 1981.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA, J. The present appeal by special leave arises out of an execution proceeding and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 21st of January, 1970 in Letters Patent Appeal setting aside the order of the Single Judge in Second Appeal.
EX parte for Respondents No.
