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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 6090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P.B. BALAJI
K.SAKTHIVEL – Appellant
Versus
T.R.GURUVENKATACHALAM – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRP No. 5206 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP No. 5206 of 2025

K.Sakthivel

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. T.R.Guruvenkatachalam

2.P.Pon Nandhagopal

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

To set aside the order and decreetal order dated 01.09.2025 in IA No. 1 of 2025

in IA No. 189 of 2015 in OS No. 22 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District

Court, Erode by allowing this Revision.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.J.Parthasarathy

For Respondent(s): Mr.T.S.Baskaran, for R1

ORDER

Heard Mr.K.J.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner/third party and Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel for the first

respondent/decree holder.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 01:26:32 pm )

##PAGE2##

CRP No. 5206 of 2025

2. Mr.K.J.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner states

that the petitioner as a third party moved an interim application in IA.No.1 of

2025 to raise the order of attachment passed in I.A.No.189 of 2015, by order

dated, 23.09.2025. The learned counsel pointing out to the decree being one for

recovery of money filed by the first respondent/decree holder/plaintiff as against

the second respondent judgment debtor/defendant, brings to my notice the order

of attachment, which came to be passed on 23.09.2015. The suit was decreed

exparte on the same date on which the order of attachment came to be passed.

The petitioner contending that he has purchased the property, which was

attached on 23.09.2015, even earlier, namely, on 02.03.2015, in and by a

registered sale deed, has moved the Trial Court for raising the order of

attachment. However, the Trial Court has erroneously found that unless the

money decree is satisfied, the petitioner, though being a purchaser would not be

entitled to raise the order of attachment. The learned counsel therefore, prays for

revision being allowed.

3. Per contra, Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel appearing for the first

respondent/decree holder, would contend that the Trial Court has not passed any

erroneous order. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the Trial Court

was that pending application for attachment before the judgment alone, the

petitioner had purchased the property and therefore, he cannot plead ignorance

or claim that he is a bonafide purchaser without notice.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 01:26:32 pm )

##PAGE3##

CRP No. 5206 of 2025

4. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties. Admittedly, no interest in the immovable property was

subject matter of the suit, which was filed by the first respondent, as plaintiff, as

against the second respondent/defendant. It was a simpliciter suit for recovery

of money and along with the suit, the first respondent had filed an application

under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking attachment of the

immovable property, which originally belonged to the second

respondent/defendant. On the date of the suit being decreed exparte, the

application for attachment before judgment was also favourably considered and

ordered in favour of the first respondent.

5. However, the petitioner being a stranger to the lis, came forward with

I.A.No.1 of 2025, invoking Order 38 Rule 9 CPC for raising the order of

attachment, contending that his purchase was prior to the order of attachment

being passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court, without noticing the same, has

erroneously proceeded to hold that it is the duty of the third party to satisfy the

decree, before he becomes entitled to an order of raising the attachment. Once

the petitioner is able to demonstrate that, on the date of his purchase, that too,

by way of a registered instrument, there was no attachment of the immovable

property concerned, then the petitioner was certainly entitled to protection and

the application under Order 38 Rule 9 CPC ought to have been allowed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 01:26:32 pm )

##PAGE4##

CRP

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 Back to top