IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on:07.11.2025 Pronounced on:05.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and CMP. Nos. 21804 & 21806 of 2025 I. Mohammed Farook Petitioner in both CRP Vs

1.P.Dineshkumar

2.G.Sivakumar 3.Thilagavathi Respondents in both CRP COMMON PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the decreetal order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in E.A. SR. Nos.44239 & 44236 of 2025 in E.P. No.464 of 2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh in both CRPs For Respondents : Ms.G.Pavithra for R1 in both CRPs No Appearance for R2 and R3 in both CRPs **********

COMMON ORDER

The revision petitioner in these revision petitions is the proposed judgment debtor No.3. The revision petitioner filed E.A.SR.Nos.44236 and 44239 of 2025. Both the applications came to be dismissed by common order dated 08.08.2025 and challenging the same, the present revision petitions have been filed.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions and Ms.G.Pavithra, the contesting first respondent in both these revisions.

3. The Applications have been filed under Order XXI, Rule 55 CPC, seeking to suspend the order of attachment dated 27.03.2025 and to implead the revision petitioner as a judgment debtor in the Execution Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.Ramesh, would submit that the first respondent as plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No. 4355 of 2021 for recovery of a sum of Rs.16 lakhs, together with interest at 24% per annum, the liability arising out of a mortgage deed in and whereby, the suit property had been mortgaged.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the second respondent executed a promissory note and a letter of undertaking to repay the borrowed sum of Rs.16 lakhs within a period of 36 months. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the mortgage deed was not registered by the Sub Registrar and at that juncture, the second respondent, the defendant No.1 handed over certified copies of the title deeds and undertaking to handover the original title deeds later. It is the further case of the plaintiff that possession was given to him. In the meantime, the second respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.8 lakhs from East West Benefit Fund Limited on 18.03.2021 in respect of which, a registered mortgage deed came to be executed. Despite the said mortgage, the second respondent settled the property in favour of his wife, the third respondent in and by settlement deed dated 20.01.2021. The plaintiff has given a police complaint against the second respondent and the second respondent has undertaken to settle the amounts due to the plaintiff and since there has been a default, the suit was filed.

5. The defendants, husband and wife, contested the claim on the ground that they never intended to mortgage the property in favour of the plaintiff and possession was also not given to the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint. However, they admitted execution of a promissory note for Rs.7 lakhs towards receipt of lease amount for the suit property, in addition to a lease agreement which was given in favour of the plaintiff.

The Trial Court decreed the suit on 25.04.2024.

6. E.P. No.464 of 2025, was filed to recover the decree amount.

The Executing Court, by order dated 27.03.2025, attached the suit property. It is at this juncture, that the revision petitioner filed applications to implead himself as one of the judgment debtors and also to suspend the order of attachment. The said applications, on enquiry came to be dismissed by the Executing Court, necessitating the present revision petitions.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.S.Ramesh would submit that the Executing Court has proceeded to order attachment of the property despite the fact that the revision petitioner had a registered sale agreement dated 21.10.2024, in his favour in respect