Ramakant Jha and Others v. Hero Cycle Limited and Another

IN T

Rama Kant Jha Hero Cycle Ltd.

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

the Constitution learned Civil Ju the plaintiff/resp directed to discl Brief Facts

2.

₹9,37,23,135/– 38 Rule 5 CPC the defendants w moved another disclose their m the revenue au concerned for r property shall be

3.

it was not main THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

De

and Others

VERSUS . and Another

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. A.D.S.Sukhija, Advocate for th -.- ANNU J. e present civil revision petition h n of India for setting aside the or udge (Junior Division), Ludhiana pondent has been allowed and th lose their assets on oath by way o e plaintiff–Hero Cycles Ltd. ins against the petitioners. In the sa for attachment before judgment was also filed. During the penden application seeking a direction ovable and immovable assets on uthorities, the Municipal Cor recording an entry in their reg e subject to the outcome of the s e petitioners opposed the applica ntainable, as an earlier applicatio

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-6313-2025 (O&M) cided on :- 10.09.2025

....Petitioners ....Respondents EEP PANNU he petitioners. has been filed under Article 227 rder dated 31.07.2025 passed by a, whereby the application filed he petitioners/defendants have b of affidavit. stituted a civil suit for recovery aid suit, an application under Or t of certain properties belonging ncy of that application, the plain n that the defendants be ordered n oath, and that intimation be sen rporation, and the Sub-Regis gisters that any alienation of su uit. ation, inter alia, on the ground t on under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC

- 7 of d by een y of rder g to ntiff d to nt to trar uch that

attachment befo be attached wer Also some of th was no provisio oath.

4.

the defendants immovable, whe behalf, to the ex court relied upo Part L, Chapter Court, in money disclose his ass Rules further em the Registrar un alienation of suc

5.

I ha the record.

6.

On for recovery of ₹ 38 Rule 5 CPC During pendenc directions to the allowed this sub Court Rules and Court has been s ore judgment was already pendin re purchased much prior to the he properties did not even belon n of law empowering the trial co e learned trial Court, however, to file on affidavit a disclosur ether in their own name or in the xtent of the liability claimed in on "Punjab and Haryana High C 1 (as amended)," holding that th y suits and before settlement of sets on oath to the extent of the mpower the Court to direct the nder the Registration Act to mak ch property shall be subject to th ave heard learned counsel for the n perusal of the record, it is clea ₹9,37,23,135/– and simultaneous seeking attachment before judg cy of the said application, anot e defendants to disclose their ass bsequent application while relyin d Orders, Volume I, Part L, Ch specially empowered to direct di

ng and that the properties sough e alleged transactions in questi ng to the defendants and that th ourt to direct disclosure of assets allowed the application, direct re of all their assets, movable a e name of any other person on th the suit, within 15 days. The t Court Rules and Orders, Volum he said rules specially empower f issues, to require the defendan e liability claimed in the suit. T Revenue Municipal Authorities ke entries in their records that a he decision of the pending suit. e petitioners and have gone throu ar that the plaintiff instituted a sly filed an application under Or gment of the defendants' propert ther application was filed seek sets on oath. The learned trial Co ng upon "Punjab and Haryana H hapter 1, Rule 6," holding that isclosure of assets.

- ht to ion. here s on ting and heir trial me I, t to s or any ugh suit rder ties. king ourt

7.

A c Rule 2 of the judgment and c grounds. It reite provided in Ord about to dispose the Court.

8.

Rul as under: "En Cou sec

9.

A b appropriate case decree. It nowhe file an affidavit assets. The impu

10.

It application unde details of four i furnished. Whil the present app himself asserts k seeks a direction stand undermine closer scrutiny of the relevant R said Chapter specifically deals cautions that such orders ough erates that the circumstances ju der 38 CPC and the Court mus e of or remove his property, or i le 6, which was inserted by noti nsuring satisfaction of decree – urt may in appropriate cases curity from the defendant to ensu powers under Section 151 CPC bare reading of Rule 6 makes es, demand security from the d ere contemplates or authorises th t disclosing on oath the entiret ugned order, therefore, travels fa is further pertinent that the er Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for atta immovable properties and certa le such an application was pend plication for disclosure of asset knowledge of the assets of the n that the defendants disclose al es the maintainability of the appl

Rules, however, reveals otherw s with attachment or arrest bef ht not to be made on insuffici ustifying such orders are distinc st be satisfied that the defendan is about to leave the jurisdiction fication dated 21.11.2022, provi – In suit for payment of money, at any stage of the suit dema ure satisfaction of decree exercis ." it evident that the Court may, defendant to ensure satisfaction he Court to compel the defendan ty of his movable and immova ar beyond the scope of Rule 6. plaintiff had already moved achment before judgment, in wh ain bank accounts were specifica ding adjudication, the plaintiff fi ts. On the one hand, the plain defendants, and on the other ha ll assets on oath. This contradict lication.

- wise. fore ient ctly nt is n of ides and sing , in n of nt to able an hich ally iled ntiff and,

under Order 38 to pass a novel sanction in the C Conclusion

12.

In opinion that the power of the C Rules is limite satisfaction of a disclose his ass exorbitant or th passing such dir

13.

Acc learned Civil Ju trial Court shall, Order 38 Rule strictly in accord

14.

15.

Pen

September 10, 2 tripti

Whether s

Whether e learned trial Court has, inste Rule 5 CPC and recording satis l direction compelling disclosur Code of Civil Procedure, nor in t view of the above discussion e impugned order dated 31.07.2 Court under Order Rule 6 of the ed to demanding security in a possible decree. It does not ex sets on oath. Merely because t here exists a general apprehen rections without the statutory fou cordingly, the impugned order udge (Junior Division), Ludhian , however, remain at liberty to de 5 CPC and any application un dance with law and upon satisfac e civil revision petition is allowe nding application(s), if any, also 2025

speaking/non-speaking : Speaking reportable : Yes/No

ead of adjudicating the applicat sfaction in terms thereof, proceed re of assets. Such an order has the Rules and Orders relied upon n, this Court is of the conside 2025 is legally unsustainable. T e Punjab and Haryana High Co n appropriate cases to safegu xtend to compelling a defendant the amount claimed in the suit nsion of alienation, cannot jus undation. r dated 31.07.2025 passed by na, is hereby set aside. The learn ecide the pending application un nder Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CP ction of the statutory requiremen ed. stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE

- tion ded n. ered ourt uard t to t is tify ned nder PC,