Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR
T.Senthilvel – Appellant
Versus
K.Saminathan – Respondent
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 1st respondent.
4. The 1st 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 1st respondent raised a plea that he received a loan of Rs.40,00,00
A transfer made with knowledge of an attachment before judgment can be contested as fraudulent under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
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.
A claim under Order 38 Rule 10 of C.P.C is maintainable after the suit is decreed, and the attachment before judgment continues after the decree, adjudicable under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C.
It is settled law that power under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC is drastic and extraordinary power.
The court emphasized that attachment before judgment requires credible evidence of intent to obstruct execution, and failure to consider relevant documents constitutes a jurisdictional error.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
