JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., against the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tirupur in IA No.434 of 2021 in OS No.371 of 2021.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the fair and decretal order dated 04.10.2021 made in I.A.No.434 of 2021 in O.S.No.371 of 2021 on the file of Principal District Court, Tirupur.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in a suit in O.S.No.371 of 2021. The said suit has been filed by the respondent herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.71,61,675/- along with interest based on the loan confirmation cum undertaking deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent having borrowed the loan amount of Rs.60,00,000/-. Though for the purpose of repayment of loan amount, the petitioner gave various cheques with different denominations, the same have been returned by the concerned bank for in-sufficient funds, which prompted the respondent to file the suit. Along with the suit, the respondent has also moved an interlocutory application in I.A.No.434 of 2021 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C., to direct the petitioner/defendant to furnish the security for the suit amount, failing which to attach the suit scheduled property before judgment.

3. In the said Interlocutory Application, the respondent/plaintiff claimed that the petitioner/defendant has failed to repay the loan amount borrowed by him despite repeated demands and the cheques issued in lieu of repayment of suit amount were also dis-honoured and that there is every likelihood of the petitioner/defendant to dispose of the property which stood in his name with malafide intention to defeat the suit claim.

4. Resisting the Interlocutory Application, the petitioner/defendant filed a counter statement wherein he simply denied every averment made in the petition as false and stated that even before filing of the suit by the respondent herein, the petitioner has settled the petition mentioned property in favour of his wife Tmt.R.Kokulavani by way of registered settlement deed dated 06.07.2021. The petitioner has also filed encumbrance certificate to show that he is no more owner of the petition mentioned property so as to order the attachment of the same. Therefore, the question that the petitioner is making attempts to dispose of the subject property does not arise. It is also stated that due to COVID 19, the petitioner sustained severe loss in business and he was unable to repay the loans borrowed from his friends and his relatives. But, he is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent.

5. On consideration of the contentions raised by both sides and also the materials placed on record, the trial Court by order dated 04.10.2021, allowed the Interlocutory Application and directed the petitioner herein, to furnish security for the satisfaction of the suit claim and also ordered impleadment of wife of the petitioner as party defendant in the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that when admittedly the petitioner transferred and settled the subject property in favour of his wife by way of registered settlement deed, the petitioner is no longer owner of the said property and the trial Court though aware of this fact, erroneously ordered the application which requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel would also contend that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit on 22.07.2021, while the petitioner/defendant executed the settlement deed in favour of his wife as early as on 06.07.2021 i.e., prior to the filing of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the suit has been filed by the respondent based on fabricated undertaking and confirmation letter and also by the documents which were forged by the respondent. He would point out that the