Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
P.Jeeva – Appellant
Versus
M.Samundeswari – Respondent
CMP No. 7285 of 2026 | CMP NO. 5945 OF 2025 | CRP | EP No.1515 of 2024 | OS No.2650 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Bala Chandar
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Anbu
Attachment order set aside for lack of notice to judgment debtors despite valid defence; opportunity to contest granted.
Headnote:The revision petitioners challenged an ex parte attachment order in execution proceedings arising from a suit filed in 2017, alleging fabrication of records by the respondent and withholding of original property documents. The court found that notice was served only on the garnishee, not the judgment debtors, who possess a valid defence. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court examined the procedural irregularity in the ex parte decree and execution. The key issue was whether the attachment order was maintainable absent proper notice to judgment debtors and given their valid defence. The ratio decidendi holds that executing courts must ensure notice to judgment debtors before attachment, particularly where original documents are withheld and a valid defence exists, setting aside the order and directing opportunity to contest. The attachment order in E.P. No.1515 of 2024 in O.S. No.2650 of 2017 was set aside; revision petitioners directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- and granted liberty to challenge the decree; CRP disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges ex parte attachment in execution of suit. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners allege fabrication and seek quashing. (Para 2) |
| 3. no notice to debtors despite valid defence. (Para 3) |
| 4. sets aside order, grants contest opportunity, requires deposit. (Para 4) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned attachment order passed in E.P.No.1515 of
2024 in O.S.No.2650 of 2017 by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Revision Petitioner/Judgment Debtors preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners/Judgment Debtors would submit that by fabricating the records, the respondent/plaintiff had come forward with the suit and she is withholding the original documents of property belonged to the revision petitioners/judgment debtors. He would submit that still they are having valid defence to prove their case, but without serving proper notice, they were remained exparte and they are ready to contest both the Execution Petition as well as the suit. He would further submit that the attachment order passed against the Garnishee also as such is not maintainable.
Therefore, they prayed to set aside the findings of trial judge.
3. On perusal of records, the notice was served only on the Garnishee and not to the revision petitioners/judgment debtors. Since they are having valid defence to prove their case, suitable opportunity is to be given to them. Furthermore, before the first execution proceedings, though they appeared, they remained exparte. Therefore, the second Execution Petition was filed to attach the salary in the hands of Garnishee. So, the executing court has ordered to attach the salary. But, on seeing entire facts, it is only an exparte decree and based on which, the execution proceedings are initiated. However, as on date, according to the revision petitioners, the original documents are in the hands of respondent/decree holder. The Revision Petitioners are having valid defence to prove their case and so, suitable opportunity is to be given to them.
4. Considering that, this Court is inclined to set aside the attachment order passed in E.P.No. 1515 of 2024 in O.S.No.2650 of 2017 by the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. By giving opportunity to the revision petitioners, the Executing Court is directed to proceed with the matter. Furthermore, on seeing the facts, it reveals that all these years i.e. from the year of 2017, the suit is pending before the trial court and the revision petitioners/defendants have not properly contested the suit. So, liberty is granted to the revision petitioners/defendants to challenge the findings of the decree before the trial court in the manner known to law. The revision petitioners are also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- before the Executing Court in E.P.No.1515 of 2024 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the Executing Court is directed to proceed with the matter and dispose the case. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.
