Madras High Court
M/S.Chennai Ex-Servicemen ... vs M/S.Balsara Engineering ... on 8 October, 2021
CRP.Nos.307 & 309 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 08.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
CRP.Nos.307 & 309 of 2019
and
CMP.No.2268 of 2019
CRP.No.309 of 2019
M/s.Chennai Ex-servicemen Security
& Detective Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
Mr.S.Murugan,
having office at
New No.52/1, Old No.14/3,
Ramasamy Raja Stret,
Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106 ... Petitioner
(in both Petitions)
.Vs.
M/s.Balsara Engineering Products Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
D.Jeetendra Bhandari,
SF/273, 16th KM Mile Stone,
Kavaraipettai – Sathyavedu Road,
Vaaniyamalli Village,
Thanipoondi, Gummidipondi Taluk,
Thiruvallur District 601 202 ... Respondent
(in both Petitions)
PRAYERS: Civil Revision petitions filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated
03.10.2018 passed in I.A.No.4155 of 2018 in O.S.No.1582 of 2018 and
I.A.No.138 of 2018 in I.A.No.4155 of 2018 in O.S.No.1582 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
CRP.Nos.307 & 309 of 2021
respectively, on the file of XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court at
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramya
(in both Petitions)
For Respondent : Mr.P.G.Thiyagu
for M/s.I.Mohamed Faras
(in both Petitions)
COMMON ORDER
CRP.No.307 of 2019 has been filed against the order passed in
I.A.No.4155 of 2018 in O.S.No.1582 of 2018, on the file of the learned
XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.CRP.No.309 of 2019 has been filed against the order passed in
I.A.No.138 of 2018 in I.A.No.4155 of 2018 in O.S.No.1582 of 2018, on
the file of the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner
filed Suit in O.S.No.1582 of 2018 against the Respondent for recovery of
money to the tune of Rs.17,83,992/-. The Petitioner also filed
I.A.No.4155 of 2018 under XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC to direct the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/6
CRP.Nos.307 & 309 of 2021
Respondent to furnish security for the said claim within a time fixed by
the Court, failing which, to attach the movables mentioned in that
Petition. Therefore, on 21.03.2018, the learned XV Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai, directed the Respondent to furnish the
security for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- on or before 28.03.2018. Since
security was not furnished, on 28.03.2018 attachment was ordered.
Order dated 10.07.2018 of the Court below reveals that security was
furnished and order dated 03.10.2018 of the Court below reveals that
security was furnished by way of indemnify bond, and I.A.No.4155 of
2018 in O.S.No.1582 of 2018 was closed.
4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Respondent filed security for avoiding attachment of property under
order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC, describing schedule of property, but
without producing the document. When the copy of the document is not
furnished, the security bond of the respondent is not proper sufficient.
However, without considering the objections of the Petitioner, the
learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, closed
I.A.No.4155 of 2018 in O.S.No.1582 of 2018 on the ground that security
was furnished and allowed I.A.No.138 of 2018 which was filed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/6
CRP.Nos.307 & 309 of 2021
raising the attachment order. Against both the orders, these CRPs are
filed. Mere filing of security bond without any supporting documents to
give confidence that the property mentioned in the security bond belongs
to the Respondent is not sufficient. Moreover, order of raising the
attachment is cryptic one line order without recording any reasons.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the Petitioner pressed for setting aside
the order of the Court below and sought for directions to the Respondent
to produce cash security or other acceptable security matching the value
of the suit claim, else prayed for attachment of the Petition mentioned
property before judgment.
5.Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that sufficient
security was given and that is enough and prayed for dismissal of these
Petitions.
6.Considered the rival submissions and perused the
records. From the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner and perusal of records, it is
evident that Suit was filed for recovery of Rs.17,83,992/-, Petition for
attaching the movable properties before judgment was also filed.
Security bond was filed in a paper without any supporting documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/6
CRP.Nos.307 & 309 of 2021
The learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, satisfying
with the security documents, closed the Petition and raised the
attachment. It is seen that both the orders are not speaking orders but a
cryptic order. Submissions of the parties were not considered before
passing the one line order. Therefore, this Court set side the orders
passed in I.A.No.138 of 2018 and in I.A.No.4155 of 2018 and remit the
matter to the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for
considering the submissions of both the parties and to pass a detailed
order with regard to the satisfaction of the security furnished by the
Respondent.
7.Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.10.2021
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/6
CRP.Nos.307 & 309 of 2021
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
sai
To
The learned XV Additional Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
CRP.Nos.307 & 309 of 2019
and
CMP.No.2268 of 2019
Dated: 08.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
