ORDER :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.5651 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in I.A.No.02 of 2024 in O.S.No.874 of 2024, dated 26.08.2025 allowing the application filed by the respondent/defendant seeking to raise the attachment passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024.

2. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.6447 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur in I.A.No.02 of 2024 in O.S.No.874 of 2024, dated 26.08.2025 dismissing the I.A.No.2 of 2024 filed by the petitioner seeking attachment before judgment.

3. The petitioner herein filed a suit for recovery of advance amount of Rs.98,00,000/- based on the alleged Sale Agreement dated 04.09.2024 entered between petitioner and the 1^st respondent.

4. The 1^st respondent herein contested the suit by denying execution of the Suit Sale Agreement. It is his case that Suit Sale Agreement is a forged document and hence, the prayer of the petitioner for recovery of the amount was not maintainable. However, in the written statement, the 1^st respondent raised a plea that he received a loan of Rs.40,00,000/- from the plaintiff and as a security for the same, certain documents were deposited with the plaintiff and he also signed blank stamp papers and the same could have been used to prepare the Suit Sale Agreement. Pending suit, an application has been filed by the petitioner seeking attachment before judgment of the agreement mentioned property described as ‘A’ Schedule to the I.A.No.2 of 2024 and another property belonged to 1^st respondent described as suit 'B' Schedule.

5. The suit was filed on 04.11.2024 and an order of attachment before judgment was passed on 28.03.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 as the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant failed to furnish any security inspite of sufficient opportunity. Thereafter, I.A.No.4 of 2025 has been filed by the 1^st respondent seeking to raise attachment before judgment on the ground that his share in the subject property was sold to his mother-Palaniammal even prior to the attachment. Accepting the said plea, the Trial Court ordered raising of attachment in I.A.No.4 of 2025 and consequently, dismissed I.A.No.2 of 2024 which was filed for attachment before judgment. Aggrieved by the said two orders, these two revisions were filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that under Order 38 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, attachment before judgment can be raised only on two contingencies and the said two contingencies are not satisfied in this case and therefore, the order impugned in these revisions are liable to be set aside. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in N.R.Thiruvengadam vs. Kaliannan alias Chinna Gounder reported in 1996 LW 672 and Subbaih Thevar vs. Arunachalam reported in 2009-5- L.W.831

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent vehemently contended that even before passing of attachment order, the share of the 1^st respondent in the suit property was transferred in favour of the 1^st respondent's mother-Palaniammal under the Settlement Deed dated 21.11.2024 and hence, the Trial Court ought not have attached the property which did not stand in the name of the 1^st respondent/defendant on the date of attachment. He further submitted that the petitioner claim that a sum of Rs.98,00,000/- was paid to 1^st defendant by way of cash transaction and the same needs to be investigated as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. In such circumstances, the suit filed by the petitioner itself is liable to be dismissed.

8. Order 38 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:-

“9. Removal of attachment when security furnished or suit dismissed.- Where an order is made for attachment before judgment, the Court shall order the attachment to be