The Madurai Bench dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an interim attachment order in a suit seeking recovery of Rs.900,000 based on a pro-note. The court fixed the attachment and the trial until December 31, 2023.
Attachment order continued till 31.12.2023; trial court to dispose of suit on or before 31.12.2023.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A(MD)No.1334 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.1334 of 2010
P.G.Seshadri ... Appellant/Respondent/ 1st Defendant
Vs.
Baskaran ... Respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No. 208 of 2010 in O.S.No.75 of 2010, dated 30.04.2010 on the file of the learned I Additional District Court, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.O.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.V.Nagendran
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 75 of 2010 challenging an order of attachment passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.208 of 2010.
1/5
C.M.A(MD)No.1334 of 2010
of a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- based upon a pro-note, dated 10.11.2007 said to have been executed jointly by the defendants 1 and 2. Pending suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.208 of 2010 to attach the properties contending that the defendants are attempting to alienate the immovable property and he would not be able to enjoy the fruits of the decree.
loan amount. The defendants have further contended that the plaintiff had used some unfilled pro-notes containing the signature of the defendants which were misplaced recently in a hand bag. In Paragraph No.8 of the counter, the defendants have further given an undertaking that they will not alienate or encumber the property.
corporation and the title deed has also been deposited with the said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis creditor. Therefore, the question of attachment would not arise at this
2/5
C.M.A(MD)No.1334 of 2010
stage. Apart from the said contention, they have also contended that they
are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and the pro-notes have
been forged by the plaintiff.
19.06.2023
gbg NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Internet : Yes / No
3/5
C.M.A(MD)No.1334 of 2010
Note : Registry is directed to return all the original records to the trial Court, namely II Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
To
4/5
C.M.A(MD)No.1334 of 2010
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in C.M.A(MD)No.1334 of 2010
19.06.2023
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of interim attachment passed by the trial court should continue during the pendency of the appeal?
Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the attachment order is maintainable?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.G.Seshadri
Baskaran
R.Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
