Madras High Court
Karthick Kumar vs Ramesh on 22 December, 2021
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1201 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
C.R.P. (PD) No.1201 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.7744 of 2019
Karthick Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Ramesh ...Respondent
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.12.2018 made in I.A.
No.246 of 2018 in O.S. No.50 of 2018 on the file of Sessions (Fast Track
Mahila) Judge at Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr. T.L.Thirumalaisamy
For Respondent : Mr. R.Neelakandan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petitioner is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.50 of
2018 as against the order passed by the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila)
Judge, Namakkal, in I.A. No.246 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 4
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1201 of 2019
2. The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.50 of 2018 before the
Sessions (Fast Track Mahila), Court, Namakkal, for recovery of sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest and cost. During pendency of the suit, the
plaintiff filed an application to furnish security or to attach the property before
judgment in case the defendant failed to furnish sufficient security. The said
application was contested by the defendant. The lower Court has observed that
there is no proper plea that the respondent was trying to alienate the property.
However, the trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the
petitioner did not state whether the respondent has any other property.
Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the above Civil Revision Petition is
preferred.
3. The order of the trial Court is patently irregular. The petitioner who is
the plaintiff in the suit has given particulars about the property which is sought
to be attached before judgment. During pendency of the Civil Revision Petition,
this Court observed that the revision petition can be closed if an affidavit of
understanding is given by the respondent that the respondent will not alienate
the property which is mentioned in the petition filed for attachment.
Accordingly, the counsel for the respondent produced before this Court an
Affidavit of Undertaking signed by the respondent on 15.12.2021. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 of 4
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1201 of 2019
substance of the affidavit of undertaking is recorded.
4. Since the petitioner is now given an undertaking to preserve the
security, this Court is inclined to close this civil revision petition with an
observation that the undertaking given by the respondent will be in force till the
suit is disposed of one way or the other. Since the suit is for recovery of money
and it was laid three years back, learned counsel appear for the revision
petitioner states that a direction to the lower Court for early disposal of the suit
will be appropriate. Considering the fact that the suit is for recovery of money,
this Court directs the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, to dispose
of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is closed with the above
direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.12.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 of 4
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1201 of 2019
S.S.SUNDAR, J .,
bkn
Copy to:
The Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal.
C.R.P. (PD) No.1201 of 2019
22.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 of 4
