IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.10.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE O.S.A.No.178 of 2024 AND C.M.P.No.21399 of 2024

1.K.Palani

2.Senthil Kumar @ K.Senthil Raj .. Appellants Vs.

1.C.Raja Proprietor of M/s.Honest Builders Having office at No.13/17, Rear Building

18^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar Chennai 600 083

2.K.Sridevi .. Respondents Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No.782 of 2024 in C.S.No.27 of 2024.

For Appellants : Mr.Davidson Devashish For 1^st Respondent : Ms.Aparna Raju for M/s.G.Vijay Anand Associates

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No.782 of 2024 in C.S.No.27 of 2024, attaching the property of the defendants since they have not furnished security, pursuant to the earlier order of the learned Single Judge, in the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XXXVIII Rule 15 of CPC seeking an order of attachment before judgment.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :

2.1. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No.27 of 2024 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2.26 crores towards compensation for the work done by him, based on the undertaking letter dated 09.12.2021 given by the appellants/defendants, pursuant to the joint venture agreement dated 28.07.2016 entered into between the appellants/defendants and the

1^st respondent/plaintiff.

2.2. Pending suit, the 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed an application in A.No.782 of 2024 for attachment before judgment. This Court originally directed the appellants/defendants to furnish security for the said amount on or before 11.03.2024. However, this order seems to have been modified, taking note of the fact that the appellants/defendants have issued cheques for a total sum of Rs.57,15,000/- and therefore, the security to be furnished by the appellants/defendants was reduced to Rs.57,15,000/- and time was granted till

26.03.2024.

2.3. Despite time having been granted till 26.03.2024, the learned Single Judge found that the appellants/defendants did not furnish the security. Taking note of this conduct of the appellants/defendants, the said application was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 18.04.2024, ordering attachment of the property with effect after 07.06.2024. Challenging this order of the learned Single Judge, the defendants 1 and 2 preferred this appeal stating that the claim is based on forged documents.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 who was unable to convince us on merits, came forward with a proposal that the appellants/defendants may be directed to furnish bank guarantee, instead of attachment of the property. To this course, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent has no serious objection. Hence, this appeal is partly allowed and the attachment shall be lifted on condition that the appellants/defendants furnish a bank guarantee to a tune of Rs.57,15,000/- within a period of` four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, along with an undertaking to keep the bank guarantee alive and enforceable, till the suit is disposed of. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

[S.S.S.R.,J.] [A.D.M.C.,J.]

14.10.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No gya S.S.SUNDAR, J.

AND A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

gya O.S.A.No.178 of 2024

14.10.2024