The trial Court must consider all points raised by both parties and pass necessary detailed orders in the application, and rejection of a security bond without considering any defects and without giving an opportunity to rectify the defects is illegal.

1. The appellant, who is the defendant in the original suit filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.200 of 2013 in O.S.No.32 of 2013, dated 23.06.2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur.

2. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the respondent in I.A.No.200 of 2013 who is defendant in the suit referred as appellant and Petitioner in I.A.No.200 of 2013, who is plaintiff in the suit is referred as respondent hereafter.

4. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.32 of 2013 for recovery of money, on the basis of the promissory note as against the appellant/defendant. At the time of filing the suit, the respondent also filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code and seeking a direction to furnish security, failing which for attachment in respect of the properties belonging to the appellant before judgment as security for the suit claim. In the above said application, the respondent herein stated that the appellant with an intention to defeat the claim of the respondent arranged to convert the properties as house site and trying to sell the petition mentioned properties and on that ground prayed for attachment before judgment of the above said properties.

5. The appellant/defendant herein filed a detailed counter in which, denied the above said promissory note as a forged document and also denied the allegation that the appellant was making arrangements to convert the properties into house site and trying to sell the properties. Further, it is stated in the counter that the appellant is ready to furnish security in respect of the property situated at Karudayampalayam Village, Aravakurichi Taluk.

6. On a perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court revealed that the appellant already furnished property particulars in the counter and seeks to attach the property comprised in S.F.No.98/4 of Karudayampalayam Village. Subsequently as per order of the trial Court, the appellant herein filed fresh security in respect of second item of the Petition mentioned property i.e., T.S.No.5099 along with sale deed, dated 24.04.1999 in respect of the above said item and also another sale deed in respect of first item of the petition mentioned property along with necessary documents and the appellant prayed for to accept the above said second item as security for the suit claim. The trial Court on perusal of the security bond, it is stated in the order that the above said security bond produced by the appellant is not in accordance with Form-VI to Appendix-F of Civil Procedure Code and therefore rejected to accept the security bond furnished for the second item and directed to attach before judgment in respect of first item except the portion of the property already sold by the appellant as security for the suit claim.

7. Aggrieved over the above said attachment order passed in respect of first item and rejected the security furnished by the appellant in respect of second item, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the second item mentioned in the attachment petition is a valuable property more than the suit claim and it is free from encumbrance. The learned counsel further pointed out that the appellant furnished the above said property as security for the suit claim with all relevant documents, but the Trial Court without any acceptable reasons rejected the above said security bond by merely stating that it has not been executed in accordance with Form No. VI to Appendix-F of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore the above said order is liable to be set aside. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that the trial Court has not at all given any opportunity to rectify the defect even if any defec