The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of protecting the rights of third parties, such as bona fide purchasers, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: In C.R.P(MD)No.498 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 24.11.2017 made in I.A.No.94/2015 in O.S.No. 23/2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram.

In C.R.P(MD)No.499 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.11.2017 made in I.A.No.52/2017 in O.S.No. 23/2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram.)

1. These revision petitions have been preferred by the purchaser/petitioner, pending the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2015.

2. The brief facts to decide the present revisions are as follows:-

The first respondent, as a plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.23 of 2015 before the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,73,000/- from the defendant, namely, Mr.S.Jerone David, who is the second respondent in these revisions. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.41 of 2015 seeking attachment before judgment of the properties belonging to the defendant in the suit. The trial Court ordered the said petition and pursuant to which, the bailiff of the concerned Court effected the attachment. It is the case of the revision petitioner that he has purchased the property from the defendant on 12.02.2015. He came to know about the pendency of the suit as well as the order of attachment only after the bailiff pasted the notice. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.94 of 2015 seeking to implead himself as a respondent in I.A.No.41 of 2015, which was the application filed under Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC. The said application was pending for want of service of notice on the defendant in the suit. It is the grievance of the revision petitioner that, despite his I.A.No.94 of 2015 pending before the very same Court, the Court proceeded to order attachment of the petition mentioned property on 04.11.2016 by allowing I.A.No.41 of 2015 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the revision petitioner.

3. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to taken out another application in I.A.No.52 of 2017 seeking to raise the order of attachment under Order XXI Rule 58-3(a) of CPC. The trial Court thereafter took up all the three applications, namely, I.A.No.41 of 2015 filed by the plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC, I.A.No.94 of 2015 filed by the revision petitioner seeking to implead himself as respondent in I.A.No.41 of 2015 and I.A.No.52 of 2017 filed by the revision petitioner to raise the order of attachment. In and by a common order, dated 24.11.2017, the trial Court dismissed the applications filed by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.94 of 2015 as well as I.A.No.52 of 2017. Aggrieved by the common order, these two revisions have been filed challenging the same on the ground that the Court below has failed to see that the revision petitioner was a bonafide purchaser; on the date of order of the attachment, the defendant was not the owner of the property which was attached; despite pendency of the impleading application in I.A.No.94 of 2015, the Court below had erred in proceeding to decide the I.A.No.41 of 2015; being a suit for recovery of money, the question of lis pendens did not arise and that the mandatory procedure under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was not complied with by the respondent / plaintiff.

4. I have heard Mr.R.Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though there was no representation on behalf of the respondent on the earlier hearing date, in order to give an opportunity, the matter was adjourned for the specific purpose of the respondents advancing their arguments. Even today, being the adjourned date, there was no representation on the side of the respondents. Therefore, I reserved the matter for orders.

5. The following dates would be relevant to decide the issues in the revisions. Date of filing of the suit is 28.01.2015. The suit was tak