Gracy Catherine Vs The Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer

Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to grant leave to the petitioner/ third party to file the above CMA against the order dated 15.7.2019 passed in O.A.No.13 of 2017 in O.A.No.90 of 2010 in C.C No.1 and 2 of 2010 in Cr.Nos.7 and 8 of 2003 (On the file of the EOW-II Villupuram) by the Honble TNPID Court, Chennai -104 .

¶20

Page1 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

CMP No. 6870 of 2026

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.Ashok Kumar Standing Counsel for Ms.M.Vidya For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Gurunathan Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and second respondents.

¶26

This petition has been taken out under Section 151 of C.P.C by the third party/Gracy Catherine to grant leave to her, as a third party to prefer this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order dated 15.07.2019 passed in O.A.No.13 of 2017 in O.A.No.90 of 2010 in C.C.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 in Cr.Nos.7 & 8 of 2003 on the file of the Economic Offence Wing II, Villupuram (By the TNPID Court), Chennai .

¶27

She would further aver that she purchased the property from the 9^th respondent by through a registered Sale Deed dated 20.02.2012 in Doc.No.766 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Thirukovillur for valuable consideration. She would further aver that she was not arrayed as a party to the said proceedings and an order of attachment was passed on 30.10.2014 in O.A.No.90 of 2010 by the TNPID Court.

¶28

Page2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

CMP No. 6870 of 2026

¶31

The learned Additional Government Pleader would strenuously contend that the property was purchased during the pendency of the case. He would further contend that the petitioner is bound by the out come of the case. It is his further argument that the petitioner’s purchase is clearly hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and therefore, she is bound by the defects and liabilities attached to the suit property.

¶32