JUDGMENT / ORDER : 1. Through this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sunil Kumar Nagori (defendant before the Family Court) has approached this Court for assailing the orders dated 20.11.2015 & 17.11.2017 whereby the learned Judge, Family Court purportedly accepted the application under filed by the respondent (applicant in the Family Court) under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC and directed attachment of the shop No.S 9837 titled as “M/s Sunil Electronics, Gandhi Bazar, Bhilwara, holding the same to be in the absolute ownership of the respondent. 2. Challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order, Shri Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the application preferred by the respondent under Order 21 Rule 54 C.P.C. seeking attachment of the very same shop in question stood rejected by the Family Court by a well reasoned order dated 02.09.2015. Thereafter no fresh application was filed by the respondent and thus, there was no occasion for the Family Court to direct attachment of the shop in question which otherwise also is not within the exclusive ownership of the petitioner. He further submitted that the Family Court had generally adopted the practice of taking up the matter of the parties after lunch break. However, on 20.11.2015, the matter was taken up before lunch break and order of attachment was passed without hearing the petitioner. 3. Immediately after the order dated 20.11.2015 had been passed, the petitioner appeared in the Court after lunch hours on the same day and filed the application for recalling the said order requesting that he should be heard in the matter but the Family Court did not accede to this request. Shri Shah vehemently contended that there is no material available on record of the Family Court to show that the shop in question is in the exclusive ownership of the petitioner and rather it is virtually an admitted position that the shop is jointly owned by petitioner’s father and brothers and thus, the joint family property could not have been attached by the Family Court. 4. 4. He pressed upon the fact that the Family Court, after considering this very aspect that the shop in question was a joint family property, rejected the application for attachment by a detailed order dated 02.09.2015 and as per him the order dated 20.11.2015, whereby the shop in question has been ordered to be attached is absolutely bad in the eye of law. Shri Shah contended that no application for attachment was pending on 20.11.2015 so as to authorise the Family Court to direct attachment of the said shop on that day and that too, without hearing the petitioner. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned orders as being grossly illegal, perverse and arbitrary. 5. The respondent Smt. Sangeeta Nagori, appearing in person, contended that she has been deserted by the petitioner and is thus forced to reside at Gujarat. The Family Court has passed an order under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner has not complied with the said order and thus, in execution, the trial court can very well direct attachment of the property of the petitioner in favour of the decree-holder. She urged that the impugned orders are perfectly just and legal and hence, the writ petition should be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel Shri Shah and the respondent – decree holder appearing in person and have gone through the impugned orders. 7. Suffice it to say that the application filed by the respondent decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC stood rejected by the Family Court vide order dated 02.09.2015. While rejecting the said application the Family Court held that the decree-holder had failed to establish and identify that the defendant had any share in the shop in question. Thereafter, no fresh application for attachment of the shop in question was pending for consideration in the Family Court. While rejecting the said application the Family Court held that the decree-holder had failed to establish and identify that the defendant had any share in the shop in question. Thereafter, no fresh application for attachment of the shop in question was pending for consideration in the Family Court. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the applicant-defendant filed an application so as to establish ownership over the subject matter shop with better particulars on 20.11.2015, then upon a perusal of the said application as available on record, it is manifest that neither of the copy of the application nor the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the defendant and the Family Court in hot haste and arbitrary manner proceeded to direct attachment of the shop in question. 8. It is an admitted position that lease dead of the shop subjected to attachment stands in the name of the petitioner’s father and his brothers. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that the family court was absolutely unjustified in directing the attachment of the shop in question while superseding the orders passed previously in the matter. However, it at all, attachment is to be directed, then the copy of the application dated 20.11.2015 and the annexed documents should have been provided to the petitioner and opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to him. 9. In the wake of discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned orders dated 20.11.2015 & 17.11.2017 are absolutely arbitrary, perverse and were passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus, the same cannot be sustained, hence are quashed and set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Family Court, who shall ensure that the copy of the application and the attending documents are provided to the petitioner and thereafter a reasoned order is passed in the matter after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. 11. Record be sent back forthwith.