G. Karthick v. Muthuselvi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.03.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.552 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.2527 & 2528 of 2017 G. Karthick ... Petitioner Vs.

Muthuselvi ... Respondent Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputtur in I.A.No.1233 of 2014 in O.S.No.226 of 2014 on 10.11.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Marimuthu

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputtur in I.A.No.1233 of 2014 in O.S.No.226 of 2014 on 10.11.2016.

2. In a suit, on a promissory note, the plaintiff has sought for attachment, before judgement. The trial Court, after notice to the defendant/respondent, considering the facts of the case, has found that there is no necessity to attach the property before judgment, since the plaintiff has not prima facie established the loan transaction. Aggrieved by the dismissal of interlocutory application, the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the trial Court has misconstrued the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the Interlocutory petition, when there is every possibility of alienating the property by the defendant in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff.

3. This Court perused the impugned order as well as the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner both in I.A.No.1233 of 2014 as well as in this revision petition. From the impugned order, this Court finds that the revision petitioner has relied on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

three documents viz., the suit pro-note, encumbrance certificate and the title deed in favour of the defendant. Except these three documents, there is no evidence to show that there was a money transaction exist between the plaintiff and the defendant and there is a likelihood of alienating the property by the defendant pending suit. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the trial Court is perfectly correct and no ground available to interfere with the said order.

Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS Respondent ( ) Costs. Rs. P Stamp for Vakalatnama ....

.... 10 00 Advocate's fee ....

....

...

..

Translation Printing Charges _________ Typing ....

....

... NIL _________ To be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent Rs.10 00 __________ Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Munsif , Srivilliputtur.

+1cc to Mr.G.Marimuthu, Advocate Sr.No.15604 akv vb/jc/sar2/06.06.2017/2p/3c C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.552 of 2017 17.03.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/