S. Rajasekar VS C. Sakthivel Raajhaa

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUNDER MOHAN
S. Rajasekar – Appellant
Versus
C. Sakthivel Raajhaa – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. N. Manoharan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Santhanaraman, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Undertaking cannot be treated on par with furnishing security.

JUDGMENT

The above appeal challenges the Order passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in O.S. No. 120 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Tiruchengode.

CMA No.1461/2023

2. The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are as follows;

(i) The respondent herein filed a Suit based on a promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,73,000/- due to him by the appellant herein.

(ii) The respondent filed I.A. No.3 of 2022 under Order 38 Rule 5 and Section 151 of the C.P.C., for the attachment of a property belonging to the appellant. In the said petition, the respondent had stated that the appellant was due to pay the abovesaid amount; that the appellant was attempting to sell the said property; and that if the appellant alienates the property, the respondent would not be able to realise the amount due to him.

(iii) The appellant filed a counter statement denying the claim made by the respondent and stated that the respondent had misused a pro-note given as security at the time when the respondent and the appellant were dealing in a chit transaction; that the chit amount was settled and yet the respondent refused to return the pro-note; that the schedule mentioned