JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Ms. Chhaya Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up with the grievance that the property of the petitioner has been stated to be attached on account of non-payment of certain dues with the rider that the petitioner shall not sell the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order has been passed without any notice to the petitioner and he has filed restoration application, which is still pending. 4. In my view, since the property of the petitioner has been attached and the condition has been imposed that he will not sell the property, the restoration application cannot be decided as the petitioner has to challenge the order of attachment. 5. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.