R. Sundaram vs B. Krishnakumari

G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the order dated 25.10.2007, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Coimbatore, in I.A. No. 480 of

2007 in O.S. No. 621 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.

Heard both sides

A ''resume'' of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 621 of 2007 for recovery of money. He also filed I.A. No. 480 of 2007 under Order 38 Rule 5 of

CPC for getting attachment of the movable property before judgment. Whereupon, the Court after giving opportunity of being heard to the either

side ordered attachment before judgment. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on

various grounds.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument that due opportunity was

not given to the defendant to put forth his case and arbitrarily ABJ was ordered. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would

draw the attention of this Court to Order 43 Rule 1(q) of CPC and submit that no revision would lie, when appeal is contemplated as per the cited

provision supra. I would like to agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that in strictosenso, only CMA

would lie before the District Court.

Be that as it may, now then the learned Counsel for the respondent would make a supine submission to the effect that already as per the order

of this Court, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) was deposited in the trial Court in the account of the suit and only for the remaining

suit amount, security should be furnished, which the respondent undertakes to furnish.

In view of such a candid submission made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner/defendant, I would like to pass the

following order while disposing of this civil revision petition:

The revision petitioner/defendant shall within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order furnish security to the

satisfaction of the lower Court for the remaining suit amount, failing which attachment shall follow.

The learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would make an oral submission that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited might be ordered

to be withdrawn by the plaintiff as arrears yet to be deposited are huge. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that

the revision petitioner is disputing the liability itself and in such a case, at this stage withdrawal cannot be permitted as prayed for by the learned

Counsel for the respondent. These are all contentious issues, the revisional Court off the cuff, cannot decide the same. Hence liberty is given to the

respondent to file necessary application for withdrawal before the lower Court which shall be considered purely on merits untrammelled and

uninfluenced by any of the observation made by this Court in this order.

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.