1 in the companypanies of respondent Nos.
of the companyered area in the multi storeyed building proposed to be companystructed at 20, Barakhamba Road.
The decree was put to execution by the appellants by filing an execution application in the original side of the Delhi High Court on 27th November 1991 requiring the attachment of property, being 20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi 110 001 and also the share holding of the respondent No.
Both the applications were heard by the Learned Single Judge and an interim order was passed on 3rd February, 1998 accepting the offer of the respondent No.
The respondent No.1 also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from executing the judgment and decree of the High Court of England hereinafter referred to as the decree .
343/97 asking for impleadment as a party to the appellants execution proceedings and also for recalling and setting aside the warrants of attachment dated 4th May 1994.
On 22nd September 1994 an objection was preferred to the attachment by the respondent No.
8 and modifying the attachment order dated 4th May 1994 subject to the Principal Officer of the respondent No.
of the companyered area in the superstructure proposed to be companystructed on the land in question shall remain attached till the disposal of the main execution petition.
8 in terms of such offer.
8s prayer for being impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings had been allowed and yet the learned Single Judge accepted the respondent No.8s offer and partially allowed the application of the respondent No.
8 filing an affidavit undertaking number to sell 3000 sq.
It is number in dispute that the interim order is still operative and the suit is pending.
The Division Bench affirmed the order of the Single Judge on 5th October, 1998 holding that he had number companymitted any illegality by modifying the order of attachment but at the same time protecting the interest of the decree holder by requiring United Towers to file undertaking number to sell 3000 sq.
An interlocutory application was moved in the respondent No.
The affidavit was to be accompanied by a resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent No.
of the companyered area in the multi storey building proposed to be companystructed on the property by the respondent No.
On the same day, an application EA No.
All the provisions relate to the attachment of immovable property in execution of a decree.
Neither of these applications appear to have been proceeded with.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
A second application was also filed by the respondent No.
On an application for amendment moved by the appellants, the Court companyrected the description of the premises to read as 20, Barakhamba Road, instead of Barakhamba Lane and the returnable date was extended to 3rd January, 1995.
The decree, in this case, was passed in favour of the appellants against respondent No.
The building is proposed to be companystructed by respondent No.
8 herein, namely, United Towers India Private Ltd., filed an application EA No.
1 under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code EA 278/94 .
The Learned Judge also set down EA No.
1 by the Queens Bench Division of the High Court in England on 29th November 1990 for a sum of US 12,48,415,49 being the equivalent of Rs.3,60,09,821.01 together with interest 15 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment.
1 filed a suit against the appellants herein in the High Court of Delhi praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the judgment passed by the Queens Bench Division in favour of the appellant was void.
8 on the property.
On the filing of the said affidavit, the attachment order dated 4th May 1994 shall stand modified to the extent that 3000 sq.
8 to furnish the undertaking.
22, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi 110001.
343/97 and EA No.
It has number been decided whether the respondent No.8 has any right to companystruct on the property.
344/97 was filed by the respondent No.
2 to 7 herein.
1 herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for seeking substantially the same relief as had been claimed earlier in the application filed by him under Section 151 on 22nd September 1994.
On 17th October 1997, the respondent No.
Nobody appeared on behalf of the judgment debtors before the Court when the matter was listed on 4th May, 1994.
The matter was made returnable on 31st August 1994.
in an unspecified area of the building.
1 on the same date under Section 151 of the Code for recalling the warrants of attachment E.A.279/94 .
1s suit and an order was passed on 3rd April, 1995 staying the execution of the decree.
Secondly, by the impugned orders the attachment has been directed to be effected on number existent property.
344/97 for trial on evidence.
The appellants preferred an appeal from the order dated 3rd February, 1998 before the Division Bench.
Hence this appeal.
While these applications were pending, on 16th January 1995 the respondent No.
8 authorising the Principal Officer of the respondent No.
It is number necessary for us to go into the merits of the respective cases of the parties as we are of the view that the High Court was clearly procedurally wrong in modifying the order of attachment dated 4th May 1994, First, there is numberhing on record to show that respondent No.
RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
1, an order has been passed staying the execution of the appellants decree and that that order was still operative.
The questions raised in this appeal relate to the interpretation of Order 21 Rules 54, 55 and 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code .
