K.KALYANASUNDARAM
Rajesh Kumar Goel – Appellant
Versus
Mamta – Respondent
1. This revision arises against the order passed by VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.11728 of 2014 in O.S.No.4278 of 2014.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.4278 of 2014 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent has filed the suit against the petitioner under Order 37 of C.P.C for recovery of Rs.6,20,000/- on the basis of a promissory note dated 18.06.2013. In the suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.11728 of 2014, under Order 38 Rule 5, Sections 94(b), 136 and 151 of C.P.C., seeking attachment before judgment of the property of the defendant.
3. The plaintiff has averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the defendant at the time of borrowing money represented that is in dire need of funds to meet his needs and he owns and possess a property and he has ample means to pay the amount borrowed from her. The defendant has further promised and assured that he would repay the amount within a short period, but he failed and neglected to repay the money and he was postponing the repayments. On enquiries, the plaintiff learnt that he has raised large sums from various financiers
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.