Dismissed

N.Balajivenkat v. Bhuvaneswari Udayakumar

Madras HC9 Dec 2025OSA/368/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of an Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC application for security and attachment before judgment in a recovery suit. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's prima facie suspicion over a limitation affidavit containing only two signatures and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

N.Balajivenkat Vs Bhuvaneswari Udayakumar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

2025:MHC:2890

¶2

OSA No. 368 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 09-12-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

OSA No. 368 of 2025

¶8

N.Balajivenkat

2.B.Vijayalakshmi

Appellant(s)

Bhuvaneswari Udayakumar

¶13

2.Anitha

¶14

3.Radhika

¶15

4.Norton Granites And Properties (p) Ltd (A Company registered under the Company Act 1956) Registered Office at No.18, Manikeswari St, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

PRAYER

¶18

To set aside the order dated 12.09.2025 uploaded on 23.09.2025 in Application No. 3110 of 2025 in CS No. 147 of 2025, on the file of the Original Side of this Court by allowing the said application with cost and thus render

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

OSA No. 368 of 2025

¶22

justice.

¶23

For Appellant(s): Mr.P. Vasudevan

¶24

For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan for R1 to R4

¶25

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by C.KUMARAPPAN J.)

¶26

The present appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Application No.3110 of 2025, whereby the prayer sought by the appellant for directing the respondents to furnish security was rejected.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that they filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,17,50,000/-, and that when the defendant intends to sell away the property to defeat the ultimate decree that will be passed in the civil suit, the plaintiff came up with an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC to direct the respondents to furnish security and, in the absence of furnishing security, sought for an attachment before judgment. The main contention put forth by the appellant’s counsel is that in spite of the averment as contemplated under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC filed before the Court, learned Single Judge has arrived at an incorrect conclusion. Therefore, the order impugned is to be set aside.

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

OSA No. 368 of 2025

¶31

This contention was totally objected by the learned counsel for the respondents and would contend that, apart from the non-compliance of the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5, learned Single Judge has also come to a prima-facie conclusion about the reliability of the document, and that the relief sought for attachment before judgment is not an ordinary relief and which has an impact upon the property right of the respondents. Therefore, contended that, unless there is prima facie satisfaction to the Court, the question of directing the respondent to furnish security does not arise. Hence prays for dismissal of the present Original Side Appeal.

¶32

We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both sides.

¶33

Learned Single Judge rejected the petitioner's claim on two grounds. Firstly, the learned Single Judge prima-facie found that the document submitted by the petitioner to bring the suit within limitation was suspicious. Secondly, the learned Single Judge would point out the non-compliance of the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5. As rightly contended by the appellant's counsel, though there is no separate affidavit filed, the harmonious reading of the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, there are ingredients to bring the application within ambit of Order XXXVIII Rule 5. But

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

OSA No. 368 of 2025

¶37

at the same time, the learned Single Judge, while looking at the undertaking affidavit, which was mainly relied by the petitioner to bring the suit within the period of limitation, was of the prima facie view that the said affidavit cum declaration though allegedly executed by three persons, the same contains only two signatures. This was the main reason relied by the learned Single Judge to deny the relief to the petitioner.

¶38

We absolutely do not find any infirmity in the findings given by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present Original Side Appeal. However, though there is a finding with regard to the suspicion over the affidavit, this is only a prima-facie finding of the learned Single Judge, and the appellant has every right to prove the document before the Court of law.

¶39

In view of the above findings, we do not find any merits in the present Original Side Appeal. Accordingly, the Original Side Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶40

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(C.KUMARAPPAN J.) 09-12-2025

¶41

gd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

OSA No. 368 of 2025

¶45

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN J.

¶46

¶47

OSA No. 368 of 2025

¶48

09-12-2025

¶49

¶50

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

N.Balajivenkat v. Bhuvaneswari Udayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

N.Balajivenkat v. Bhuvaneswari Udayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Project Director Vs The Arbitrator / District Collector

P.Sandirasegarane Vs The Secretary To Government

M.Anbazhagan Vs the Commissioner

St.Peter Matriculation Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Union of India, Vs K Vasudevan

A.Vadivel Vs the District Collector