C.R.P.No.1579 of 2020

and C.M.P.Nos.9605 & 9607 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.10.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

C.R.P.No.1579 of 2020

and

C.M.P.Nos.9605 & 9607 of 2020

M.Jayarajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.K.Nagaraj

2.Varalakshmi

... Respondents

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.03.2020 passed in

I.A.No.509 of 2019 in O.S.No.226 of 2019 on the file of the Principal

District Judge, Villupuram.

For Petitioner

: Mr.N.Thiagarajan

For Respondent

: Ms.R.Meenal

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the fair

and decreetal orders dated 17.03.2020 passed in I.A.No.509 of 2019 in

O.S.No.226 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court,

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1579 of 2020

and C.M.P.Nos.9605 & 9607 of 2020

Villupuram.

2.The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.226 of 2019

on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram. He filed the suit

against the respondents/defendants for recovery of a sum of

Rs.25,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from

18.11.2016.

3.The case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the

defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and executed a loan

document on 18.11.2016 promising to repay the principal together with

interest at the rate of 12% per annum and that though he issued a notice

to the defendants calling upon them to repay the amount due under the

loan document dated 18.11.2016, the defendants sent a reply, which

contained false allegations. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed

I.A.No.509 of 2019 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC to attach the

property of the defendants before the judgment.

Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1579 of 2020

and C.M.P.Nos.9605 & 9607 of 2020

4.The respondents/defendants filed their counter and after full

contest, the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, dismissed the

petition vide her orders dated 17.03.2020 on the following grounds :

1) The plaintiff had filed only a loan document, the execution of

which is denied by the defendants in their written statement.

2) No sufficient grounds were made to attach the property of the

defendants under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC.

Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petitioner is filed.

5.Heard Mr.N.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioner and Ms.R.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

6.At the outset, it may be observed that the suit was filed by the

plaintiff based on an alleged loan document dated 18.11.2016. The

defendants in their written statement had specifically denied the execution

of the said document. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has to prove the

execution of the loan document dated 18.11.2016.

Page 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1579 of 2020

and C.M.P.Nos.9605 & 9607 of 2020

7.Mr.N.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner contended that it is sufficient that the respondents/defendants

gave an undertaking to not to alienate the petition mentioned properties in

I.A.No.509 of 2009.

8.Per contra, Ms.R.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/defendants relied on the decision in "Raman Tech & Process

Engg. Co. and Another Vs Solanki Traders" reported in "(2008)2 SCC

302", wherein it has been held thus :

"4.The object of supplemental proceedings (applications

for arrest or attachment before judgment, grant of

temporary injunctions and appointment of receivers) is to

prevent the ends of justice being defeated. The object of

order 38 rule 5 CPC in particular, is to prevent any

defendant from defeating the realization of the decree

that may ultimately be