Dismissed¶31

S.Lalitha, v. S.M.Mohamed Ibrahim

Madras HC15 Jul 2026CRP(MD)/1801/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (S. Sounthar J., 15.07.2026), C.R.P.(MD)No.1801 of 2026 — execution — attachment of judgment debtor's property — decree holder's liberty to attach any property of the judgment debtor notwithstanding security offered in respect of another property in an A.B.J. petition — attachment subject to rights of the secured creditor — remedy of seeking sale in lots where attached property is more valuable — revision under S.115 CPC dismissed. Keywords: attachment in execution, choice of attached property, A.B.J. petition, secured creditor, sale in lots, executing Court, Civil Procedure Code section 115.

What did the court decide?

The judgment debtor is not entitled to dictate to the decree holder as to which of the judgment debtor's properties shall be attached to satisfy the decree. ¶25

S.Lalitha, Vs S.M.Mohamed Ibrahim — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the execution petition seeking attachment of a property different from the property offered as security in the A.B.J. petition is maintainable, and whether the impugned order of attachment warrants interference.

¶24

Court's answer

The judgment debtor is not entitled to dictate to the decree holder as to which of the judgment debtor's properties shall be attached to satisfy the decree.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the defendant offered some other property as security in the A.B.J. petition, the decree holder need not attach the very same property; the decree holder is at liberty to proceed against any property of the judgment debtor at the time of execution.

¶25

Key takeaways

The attachment of the judgment debtor's property under the impugned order is subject to the rights of the secured creditor, and the executing Court's order contains no error.ratio¶25
If the judgment debtor thinks the attached property will fetch much more than the decree amount and the debt due to the secured creditor, he can request the executing Court to order sale in lots.obiter¶25
The petitioner has not made out any ground warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the executing Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the executing Court's order attaching the judgment debtor's property in execution of a money decree of Rs.3,29,200 with interest — Contention that the petitioner had already offered another property as security in an A.B.J. petition and that the execution petition seeking attachment of a different property was therefore not maintainable — Rejected: a judgment debtor is not entitled to dictate to the decree holder as to which of his properties shall be attached to satisfy the decree; merely because some other property was offered as security in the A.B.J. petition, the decree holder need not attach the very same property and is at liberty to proceed against any property of the judgment debtor at the time of execution — Attachment under the impugned order is subject to the rights of the secured creditor — If the attached property is likely to fetch more than the decree amount and the secured debt, the judgment debtor may request the executing Court to order sale in lots — No ground for interference made out; Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.1801 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.1801 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.8735 of 2026

S.Lalitha

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.S.M.Mohamed Ibrahim

¶11

2.M/s Axis Bank Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Thillainagar Branch, Thillainagar, Trichy – 18.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed in E.P.No.297 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli in O.S.No.173 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

C.R.P(MD)No.1801 of 2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the executing Court attaching the property of the petitioner in execution of the decree obtained by the first respondent against the petitioner.

¶19

It is seen from the typed set of papers that the first respondent filed a suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.3,29,200/with interest, based on a construction agreement. According to the first respondent, he constructed a house for the petitioner in terms of the construction agreement and, since the petitioner failed to pay the amount due under the agreement, the suit came to be filed. The suit was decreed and the said decree was put into execution in E.P. No. 297 of 2023.

¶20

In the said Execution Petition, the first respondent sought attachment and sale of the property belonging to the petitioner for recovery of the decretal amount. Since the petitioner failed to pay the decretal amount, the executing Court, by the impugned order, ordered attachment of the property belonging to the petitioner.

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P(MD)No.1801 of 2026

¶24

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner already offered some other property as security in A.B.J. petition and, hence, the present Execution Petition filed by the decree holder seeking to attach different property is not maintainable.

¶25

5.The judgment debtor is not entitled to dictate to the decree holder as to which of the property belonged to the judgment debtor shall be attached to satisfy the decree. Merely because, the defendant offered some other property as security in A.B.J. petition, the decree holder need not attach the very same property in execution. The fact remains that other property offered by the judgment debtor has not been attached. In such circumstances, the decree holder is at liberty to proceed against any property of the judgment debtor at the time of execution. Now, the property of the judgment debtor is attached by the impugned order, subject to the rights of the secured creditor. I do not find any error in the said order. If the judgment debtor thinks the property attached will fetch much more amount than the decree amount and the debt due to the secured creditor, he can always request the executing Court to order sale in lots.

¶26