G.Anandakumar vs M.P.Samiyappan
2021 Latest Caselaw 23016 Mad

                                                                                  C.R.P.(PD).No.208 of 2020

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED: 24.11.2021

                                                             CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                                   C.R.P.(PD).No.208 of 2020
                     G.Anandakumar                                                    .. Petitioner
                                                                Vs.
                     M.P.Samiyappan                                                   .. Respondent


                     PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                     of India, praying to allow the above Civil Revision Petition by setting aside
                     the fair and decreetal order dated 30.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in
                     O.S.No.66 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions
                     Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.
                                        For Petitioner      : Miss.A.Dhanwanthi
                                                              for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

                                        For Respondent      : Mr.J.Franklin

                                                              ******
                                                            ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order dismissing his application seeking

attachment before judgment.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.208 of 2020

2. The petitioner has sued for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,19,794/-,

allegedly due on a promissory note executed by the respondent. Along with

the suit, the petitioner sought for attachment of property of the respondent

claiming that the respondent is taking emergent steps to alienate the

property. The respondent filed a counter, inter alia, stating that he has not

taken any steps to alienate or encumber the petition mentioned property.

3. The trial Court, in the course of its order, has recorded the

submissions of the counsel for the respondent that the statement in

paragraph 9 can be taken as an undertaking and the trial Court, among other

things, has taken note of the submission of the counsel for the respondent

and dismissed the application for attachment.

4. Heard Miss.A.Dhanwanthi, learned counsel for Mr.K.Govi

Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Franklin,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Miss.A.Dhanwanthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.208 of 2020

would vehemently contend that the language in paragraph 9 of the counter

does not amount to an undertaking and if the respondent alienates the

property the petitioner would be left high and dry. She would also submit

that in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner has

specifically alleged that the respondent is taking emergent steps to alienate

the property with a view to defeat his claim.

6. Contending contra Mr.J.Franklin, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent would submit that in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, the

respondent has stated that he has not taken any steps to alienate the

property. He would also submit that the counsel before the trial Court has

stated that this statement can be taken as an undertaking and the said

statement was recorded by the trial court. Therefore, according to

Mr.J.Franklin the interest of the petitioner is protected.

7. I have considered the rival submissions. No doubt, as contended by

the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statement in paragraph 9 of the

counter affidavit does not amount to a clear undertaking. However, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.208 of 2020

counsel for the respondent before the trial Court had stated that the

statement could be treated as an undertaking and the trial Court had

recorded that statement. Therefore, in effect, the undertaking by the

respondent, not to alienate the property, pending suit, has been recorded by

the trial Court. I find that this would be sufficient protection to the

petitioner.

8. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the trial

Court. Therefore, the Revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No

costs. Being a money suit of the year 2019, the trial Court is directed to

dispose of the suit within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt

of either the certified copy or web copy of this order.

                                                                                                24.11.2021

                     dsa
                     Index                   : No
                     Internet                : Yes
                     Speaking order
                     To





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          C.R.P.(PD).No.208 of 2020

The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, Gobichettipalayam.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.208 of 2020

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

dsa

C.R.P.(PD).No.208 of 2020

24.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis