Madras High Court
Shaji Sujatha … Revision vs Noble Jose on 28 February, 2025
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2931 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 09.01.2025
Pronounced on 28.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.R.P.(MD) No. 2931 of 2024 and
CMP(MD).No.16757 of 2024
Shaji Sujatha ... Revision petitioner / Plaintiff
Vs.
Noble Jose ... Respondent / Defendant
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.01 of 2023 in O.S.No.72
of 2023, dated 30.09.2024 on the file of the learned Additional District
Judge, Kuzhithurai.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sivakumar
For Respondent : Mr. P. Subbiah
*****
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and
dectreetal order, dated 30.09.2024 made in I.A.No. 01 of 2023 in O.S.No.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
Page No. 1 of 7
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2931 of 2024
72 of 2023, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge,
Kuzhithurai.
2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit in
O.S.No.72 of 2023, on the file of the Additional District Court,
Kuzhithurai. The said suit was filed for recovery of money based on the
registered promissory note. Pending suit, the revision petitioner / plaintiff
took out an application in I.A.No.1 of 2023 under Order 38 Rule 5 and 6
and Section 151 CPC to direct the respondent / defendant to furnish
security for a sum of Rs.15,31,832/-, failing which, the petitioner’s
property may be attached before Judgment. The said application was
resisted on the side of the respondent / defendant stating that the
respondent / defendant never borrowed any money from the plaintiff and
has not executed the said promissory note or any other documents as
alleged in the plaint. According to the respondent / defendant, the said
promissory note is a forged document and he was forced to sign in the
above document without giving an opportunity to go through the
documents. Hence, the petitioner prays for dismissal of the said
application. The trial Court dismissed the said application by stating that
since it is an un-registered promissory note and that the defendant denying
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
Page No. 2 of 7
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2931 of 2024
borrowal of the said amount and the execution of the alleged promissory
note and there is no material to show that the defendant is attempting to
remove or dispose of his assessment with an intention of defeating the
decree, dismissed the said application. Assailing the said order, the
present revision is preferred.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner /
plaintiff would submit that the respondent / defendant borrowed a sum of
Rs.12,25,500/- on 17.09.2021 by executing a registered promissory note
on 13.01.2023. When the revision petitioner demanded the said amount
with interest the respondent / defendant failed to repay the amount.
Hence, the revision petitioner/ plaintiff was constrained to file the above
suit in O.S.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the District Court, Kuzhithurai for
recovery of money. He would further submit that on receipt of the legal
notice, the defendant is attempting to alienate the suit property in order to
defeat the valuable claim of the revision petitioner / plaintiff. Hence, he
filed an application to direct the respondent / defendant to furnish the
security for a sum of Rs.15,31,832/-, failing which, the petition
mentioned property to be attached till the final disposal of the suit. It is
submitted that if the respondent / defendant alienates the property, the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
Page No. 3 of 7
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2931 of 2024
petitioner / plaintiff cannot realize the claim amount. However, the trial
Court without considering the above facts and circumstances erroneously
dismissed the said application stating that it is an un-registered promissory
note and that there is no materials to show that the defendant is attempting
to alienate the property to defeat the claim of the revision petitioner.
Whereas the suit promissory note is a registered promissory note, the
order passed by the trial Court requires interference by this Court.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would submit that the respondent / defendant never borrowed
any money from the petitioner / plaintiff and his signature was forcibly
obtained in the alleged promissory note and therefore, prays for dismissal
of this Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contention, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the following
Judgments:
1. 1985(98) LW 78 (T.Srinivasan and another Vs. V.Srinivasan)
2. 1997(3) CTC 321 (Farook Textiles Vs. Bajran Sinthetics Pvt. Ltd.,)
3. 2014(3) CTC 792 (M.Padmini Vs. M.Anandhan)
4. 2014(2)CTC 639 (S.Sidharth Vs. P.Lalitha Kumari and others)
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
Page No. 4 of 7
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2931 of 2024
5. 2003(4) CTC 344 (Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation
Ltd., and others Vs. S.Rathish Kanna)
5. Heard on both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
6. Admittedly, the above suit is filed for recovery of money based
on a promissory note. It is needless to say that the Court in an application
for attachment of property before Judgment which may use its discretion
judiciously and not arbitrarily depending on the facts and circumstances
of the given case. In the present case as stated by the trial Court, there is
no material on record that the respondent / defendant is attempting to
alienate the property in order to defeat the claim of the revision petitioner
/ plaintiff. Whether the suit promissory note is a forged one or not is for
consideration by the trial Court. However the trial Court ought to have
ordered for furnishing security as contemplated under Order 38 Rule 5
and 6 CPC. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is just
and proper to direct the respondent / defendant to furnish security for the
suit amount before the trial Court.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
Page No. 5 of 7
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2931 of 2024
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.02.2025
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
trp
Copy To:
The learned Additional District Judge, Kuzhithurai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
Page No. 6 of 7
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2931 of 2024K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
trp
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD) No. 2931 of 2024 and
CMP(MD).No.16757 of 202428.02.2025
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
Page No. 7 of 7
[ad_1]
Source link