ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the fair and decreetal orders dated 17.03.2020 passed in I.A.No.509 of 2019 in O.S.No.226 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram.

2.The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.226 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram. He filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from

18.11.2016.

3.The case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and executed a loan document on 18.11.2016 promising to repay the principal together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and that though he issued a notice to the defendants calling upon them to repay the amount due under the loan document dated 18.11.2016, the defendants sent a reply, which contained false allegations. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed I.A.No.509 of 2019 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC to attach the property of the defendants before the judgment.

4.The respondents/defendants filed their counter and after full contest, the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, dismissed the petition vide her orders dated 17.03.2020 on the following grounds :

1) The plaintiff had filed only a loan document, the execution of which is denied by the defendants in their written statement.

2) No sufficient grounds were made to attach the property of the defendants under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC.

Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petitioner is filed.

5.Heard Mr.N.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Ms.R.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6.At the outset, it may be observed that the suit was filed by the plaintiff based on an alleged loan document dated 18.11.2016. The defendants in their written statement had specifically denied the execution of the said document. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has to prove the execution of the loan document dated 18.11.2016.

7.Mr.N.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that it is sufficient that the respondents/defendants gave an undertaking to not to alienate the petition mentioned properties in I.A.No.509 of 2009.

8.Per contra, Ms.R.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants relied on the decision in "Raman Tech & Process Engg. Co. and Another Vs Solanki Traders" reported in "(2008)2 SCC

302", wherein it has been held thus :

"4.The object of supplemental proceedings (applications for arrest or attachment before judgment, grant of temporary injunctions and appointment of receivers) is to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. The object of order 38 rule 5 CPC in particular, is to prevent any defendant from defeating the realization of the decree that may ultimately be passed in favour of the plaintiff, either by attempting to dispose of, or remove from the jurisdiction of the court, his movables. The Scheme of Order 38 and the use of the words `to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him' in Rule 5 make it clear that before exercising the power under the said Rule, the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable chance of a decree being passed in the suit against the defendant. This would mean that the court should be satisfied the plaintiff has a prima facie case. If the averments in the plaint and the documents produced in support of it, do not satisfy the court about the existence of a prima facie case, the court will not go to the next stage of examining whether the interest of the plaintiff should be protected by exercising power under Order 38 Rule 5CPC. It is well-settled that merely having a just or valid claim or a prima facie case, will not entitle the plaintiff to an order of attachment before judgment, unless he also establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets with the