IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.12.2025 CORAM The Honourable MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI and CMP No.23313 of 2024 G.Kathiresan ..Appellant .vs.

1.Ravichandran

2.Kumaresh

3.The Sub Registrar, The Sub Registrar Office, Perambalur.

4.The District Registrar, The District Registrar Office, Ariyalur.

5.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Officer, Perambalur. ..Respondents Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1(r) of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order dated 15.06.2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.24 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Perambalur.

For Appellant : Mr. V.Sundarraman For Respondents : Mr. C. Sai Krishna for R1 Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan for R2 Mr.P.Gurunathan Addl. Government Pleader for R3 to R8

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order passed in IA No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.24 of 2019 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Section 151 of C.P.C., by the learned Principal District Judge, Perambalur, dated 15.06.2022.

2.Heard Mr.V.Sundarraman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr.C.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent, Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent and Mr.P.Gurunathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 8.

3.The 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant/defendant seeking for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.10,88,000/- with 18% interest. The suit was filed based on the alleged promissory note that was executed by the appellant in favour of the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking for attachment of properties in schedule A and B (ABJ) pending the suit.

4.When the matter came up for hearing on 04.09.2019, the Court below passed the following order based on the undertaking given by the appellant.

Heard. The defendant also is present in person undertook that he would not alienate his house property recording the same for closure of petition. The petitioner has no objection accordingly the petition is closed.

5.While filing the ABJ petition, two properties were shown as schedule properties and the appellant gave an undertaking that he will not alienate his properties. However, the appellant proceeded to sell the property on 31.01.2020 and executed deeds in respect of the schedule mentioned properties. Since this alienation took place in violation of the undertaking that was given before the Court below, the 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed IA No.3 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC to punish the appellant for violating the undertaking.

6.The Court below on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing both sides came to a conclusion that the appellant had intentionally violated the undertaking given before the Court and had sold the properties and therefore, the Court below ordered the appellant to be detained in the civil prison for three months. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant/defendant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the house property (B Schedule) was already mortgaged with REPCO Housing Finance Limited by way of deposit of title deeds and SARFAESI proceedings were also initiated by issuing a demand notice. In view of the same, the appellant approached the financial institution with a one time settlement offer to settle the loan amount. In order to settle this amount, the appellant had to sell the house property in favour of the 2^nd respondent. It is under these circumstances, the property came to be sold in favour of the 2^nd respondent and the sale consideration was utilized to settle the loan amount with the financial institution and the loan account was also closed.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the A Schedule property con