Disposed

Saravanan, v. L. Gajendiran

Madras HC15 Dec 2022CRP(MD)/2112/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision filed under Article 226, the Madras High Court, Dindigul Bench, disposed of the petition where the lower Court returned an application to remove property attachment due to description mismatch. The Bench held that numbering is ministerial and directed the party to be given an opportunity to show aptness of the property as per cited precedent. The petition was disposed of accord

What did the court decide?

No costs. The matter was disposed of by giving notice to the lower Court to provide opportunity to the petitioner.

Saravanan, Vs L. Gajendiran — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(MD)No.2112 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 15.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(MD)No.2112 of 2022

Saravanan

... Petitioner

1.L.Gajendran 2.P.Anusya ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.07.2021 in IA.No. Unnumbered IA.No. Of 2021 in IA.No.613 of 2018 in OS.No.401 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Parameshwari

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner is the 3^rd party to the suit in OS.No.401 of 2018. He filed an application in I.A of 2021 in IA.No.613 of 2018 under Order 38 Rule 9 CPC to remove the attachment. The said application was returned by the trial Court that the description of the

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶16

CRP(MD)No.2112 of 2022

¶17

property does not match. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

¶18

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶19

submits that the first respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money as against the second respondent before the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul in OS.No.401 of 2018 and also filed an application in IA.No.613 of 2018 under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC for attachment of the property before the judgment and the said application was allowed. It appears that the suit was also decreed exparte. The petitioner claims that he has filed the above interlocutory application under Order 38 Rule 9 CPC to remove the attachment, but the court has simply returned the application that the property description does not match.

¶20

3.Numbering a plaint or an application is only

¶21

a ministerial act. In the event the Court still feels that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, the court can provide an opportunity to the petitioner as per the decision of this Court in

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶23

CRP(MD)No.2112 of 2022

¶24

S.Prameswari Vs Denis Lurdusamy reported in (2011) 5 CTC 742 and shall decide the application accordingly.

¶25

4.The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

15.12.2022

dsk

The Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶31

CRP(MD)No.2112 of 2022

¶32

B.PUGALENDHI,J.

¶33

dsk

¶34

CRP(MD)No.2112 of 2022

¶35

15.12.2022

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Saravanan, v. L. Gajendiran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan, v. L. Gajendiran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Prayer King Vs George

A.Veerakumar Vs C.Kalaivani

A.Perumal Vs Tirunelveli Housing Unit

V.Baskaran Vs B.Sandhya

Murugesan Vs Balasubramanian

Ponnambalam Vs Padmavathi