Madras High Court
M.Ponmani vs Niraimathi on 21 December, 2021
C.R.P.(MD) Nos.2074 and 2075 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2074 and 2075 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.11037 and 11039 of 2021
M.Ponmani ... Petitioner
(in both petitions)
Vs.
Niraimathi ... Respondent
(in both petitions)
COMMON PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227
of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in
I.A.Nos.34 and 35 of 2021 in O.S.Nos.20 and 21 of 2021 dated
27.09.2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Theni at Periyakulam.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arumugam
for Mr.K.Selvam
For Respondent : Mr.K.Muthumalai
(in both petitions)
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) Nos.2074 and 2075 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
The above civil revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiff
challenging the dismissal of his applications seeking an attachment
before the Judgment of the property of the respondent /defendant. Since
the parties and the issue involved in both these revisions are the same, a
common order is being pronounced.
2.The facts in brief are as follows:-
The plaintiff herein had filed the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2021 (for
recovery of a sum of Rs.13,36,330/- together with interest on the
principal sum of Rs.10 Lakhs) and the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2021 (for
recovery of a sum of Rs.16,65,885/- together with interest on the
principal sum of Rs.13 Lakhs). In both these suits, the plaintiff has taken
out the applications seeking attachment before judgment of the property
belonging to the respondent / defendant. After contest, the learned Judge
was pleased to dismiss the said petitions by holding that the petitioner
has not proved the ingredients for obtaining an order of attachment
_________
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) Nos.2074 and 2075 of 2021
before judgment. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff/petitioner had
not proved that the respondent was attempting to sell and remove the
property. The learned Judge also held that the plaintiff has not proved
that the defendant was proceeding to cheat the plaintiff of the money that
was due to him. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff has filed the
above two civil revisions.
3.The defendant has entered appearance through caveat in the
matter. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
4.The defendant/respondent in his counter statement to the petition
under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC has given an undertaking in clear terms
that they do not intend to alienate, encumber or create a charge in respect
of the suit schedule property. The respondent has stated as follows:-
cld; $g;jp kDtpy; fz;l brhj;ij ,g;gpujpthjp fpiuak;>
mlkhdk;> xj;jp Kjyhd tpy;yq;fq;fs; bra;ag; nghtjpy;iy.
mjw;F mtrpaKk; ,y;iy. ,g;gpujpthjp 30 tUlkhf
kUj;Jtuhf gzpg[hpe;J tUfpwhh;> bjhlh;e;J tj;jyFz;L Chpnyna
kUj;Jtuhf bjhHpy; bra;a nghfpwhh;.
_________
Page 3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) Nos.2074 and 2075 of 2021
5.In the light of the above undertaking, the interest of the plaintiff
is adequately protected. Therefore, these civil revision petitions are
disposed of recording the above undertaking. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
cp
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:-
The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Theni at Periyakulam.
_________
Page 4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) Nos.2074 and 2075 of 2021
_________
Page 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) Nos.2074 and 2075 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.
cp
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2074 and 2075 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.11037 and 11039 of 2021
21.12.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
