Madras High Court
Raja vs Chelladurai on 4 June, 2021
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.825 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.825 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD).No.4431 of 2021
Raja .. Petitioner/Petitioner
-Vs-
1.Chelladurai
2.Sornam
3.Mary Vimala
4.Ajith
5.Sijukumar
6.Asha
7.Abisha .. Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Padmanabapurm in
I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.26 of 2020, dated 05.02.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.825 of 2021
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the fair
and final order passed by the Court below in an application filed by the
petitioner under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C.
2.The petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed a suit before the
Court below against the respondents / defendants, seeking for the relief
of recovery of money. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner
filed an application for attachment before judgment. The respondents
filed an undertaking affidavit before the Court below to the effect that
they will not alienate their share in the schedule properties described as
item Nos.1 to 4, till the disposal of the suit. This undertaking affidavit
was recorded by the Court below and the same was taken to be a security
furnished by the respondents and the application was disposed of
accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed
before this Court.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondents owe a huge amount to the petitioner and it is not enough if
merely an undertaking is given by the respondents. The learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.825 of 2021
submitted that the same will not tantamount to attachment of the
property.
4.In the considered view of this Court, where a security is given by
the defendants in the form of an undertaking not to alienate the property,
it is as good as an attachment and any violation of the same will make the
future transaction void. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of
this Court made in C.Sengottaiyan V. K.Saravanan, reported in 2013(6)
CTC 456. In view of the same, the interest of the petitioner has been
sufficiently safeguarded by the Court below recording the undertaking
given by the respondents. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground
to interfere with the fair and final order passed by the Court below.
5.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case
and also the fact that the petitioner has sought for the recovery of a huge
amount from the respondents to whom the same was paid by way of an
advance while entering into an agreement of sale, this Court deems it fit
to direct the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Padmanabapurm, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2020, within a
period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.825 of 2021
6.This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above
direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
04.06.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
TM
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Padmanabapurm,
Kanniyakumari District.
2.The Record Keeper,
E.R/V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.825 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
TM
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.825 of 2021
04.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
