Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 5087
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
M/s. Velpa International (P) Limited – Appellant
Versus
Priyadharshini – Respondent
CRP (PD) No. 2096 of 2023, CMP No.12825 of 2023
Decided On : 08-08-2025
For the Appellant : N. Manoharan
For the Respondents: S. Mukunth, V. Sivakumar
Undertakings not formally accepted by the court lack enforceability, rendering any subsequent breach insufficient for voiding a sale deed.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Application for attachment before judgment - Plaintiff seeks to set aside sale deed executed by defendants in breach of an undertaking to furnish security for a money claim - Trial Court dismisses application citing alternate remedy - Court emphasizes failure to formally record undertaking affects its enforceability. (Paras 1, 3-4, 11-12, 23)
(B) Lis pendens - Doctrine not applicable as no order of attachment was passed; a sale executed with no prior court prohibition is valid. (Paras 24-25)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery of Rs.67 lakhs based on a memorandum of understanding and alleged breaching conduct by defendants who disposed of the secured property without court consent.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court's dismissal of the application lacks detailed justification and does not align with facts, yet court declines to set aside sale deed due to lack of formal orders on the undertaking.
Issues: Whether defendants breached undertakings and if the sale deed should be annulled.
Ratio Decidendi: Without a recorded acceptance of an undertaking by the court, its infringement lacks enforceability and legal basis to void the sale deed exists.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision filed to set aside sale deed. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments for breach of undertaking by defendants. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defendants' rebuttal on attachment notification. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. clarification of monetary claims and obligations. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's handling of affidavit and responsibilities. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. precedents on undertaking enforcement discussed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. court's rationale for dismissing the application. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. doctrine of lis pendens applicability denied. (Para 24) |
| 9. final dismissal of civil revision petition. (Para 25) |
ORDER :
1. This revision has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.8 of 2016, seeking to set aside the order in I.A. No.1 of 2021, in and whereby, the plaintiff sought direction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the sale deed dated 28.04.2021 in Doc.7359 of 2021 on the SRO, Palladam.
2. I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.
3. The sum and substance of the arguments of the Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in a suit for recovery of money, the contesting defendant had given an undertaking in the nature of furnishing security as mandated under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter, in breach and gross violation of the said undertaking given by the defendants, the defendants have proceeded to dispose of the property in favour of the 5th respondent. This necessitated the plaintiff to take out the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.1 of 2021. However, the Trial Court has dismissed the said Application on the ground that there is a separate remedy prescribed under law and hence, finding no merit in the Application, the said I.A. No.1 of 2021 came to be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.N.Manoharan, referring to the Application filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC and the undertaking given by the defendants in the said Application, would contend that the conduct of the said defendants 1 and 2 can never be appreciated or condoned.
5. According to Mr.Manoharan, learned counsel having led the Court to accept the undertaking given that the property would be available as security for the suit claim, the defendants ought not to have alienated the same, pending the suit. He would further contend that if such conduct of the defendants who have no respect for law and Court is condoned, then it would result in grave miscarriage of justice. He would therefore state that the Trial Court, without even discussing any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel on either side, in and by a cryptic and unreasoned order has proceeded to dismiss the Application, warranting interference in revision under Section 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. The learned counsel in support of his contentions, would also place reliance on the decision of this Court in A.B. Gurumurthi Chetti Vs. Sella Perumal Pillai , Vol 44 L.W. 714 and C. Sengottaiyan Vs. K. Saravanan , 2013 (6) CTC 456 .
7. Per contra, Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel would submit that though an undertaking was given in the Application under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 seeking attachment before the judgment, he would state that unless, the order of attachment was duly notified to the Sub Registrar concerned, the attachment would be void and of no effect.
8. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel places reliances on Sri Humbi Hema Gooda and others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (CBE) Limited Coimbatore Public Limited Company, having its registered office at No.37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, Rep. by its Managing Director and others, (2011) SCC Online Mad 1709 and Sri Krishna Chit Funds (Sattur Private Limited), Sattur having its office at Door No.19, Pillaiyar Koi
