SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20844

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.VIJAYAKUMAR
MURALIKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
M.SHANTHI – Respondent


C O M M O N O R D E R

All the revision petitions have been filed by the decree holder in a money suit challenging the allowing of claim petitions filed under Order

38 Rule 10 of C.P.C.

Factual background:

2.The revision petitioner as plaintiff had filed O.S.No.72 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Pending suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.91 of 2009 seeking an order of attachment before judgment. The said application was allowed on 28.10.2009. The suit was decreed exparte on 15.02.2010. The decree holder filed E.P.No.1 of 2013 to bring the attached property for sale.

3.While the execution petitions were pending, seven claim petitions in I.A.Nos.12 to 18 of 2013 were filed by seven claimants contending that all of them have purchased the property on 23.04.2008 from the defendants through his power agent. They have further contended that they had purchased the property one year prior to the filing of the suit and therefore, on the date of passing of the order of attachment before judgment, the defendant was not the owner of the property. Hence, we prayed for rasing the order of attachment. All these sev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top