Madras High Court
CRP/6297/2026 of Udhayakumar Vs Manoharan on 6 October 2026
CRP No. 6297 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6297 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.27319 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012282112026}
Udhayakumar
..Petitioner
Vs
Manoharan M
..Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the order dated 17.07.2026 made in EP No. 10 of 2024 in O.S.No.35 of 2020 on the file of Principal District Court, Ariyalur and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Subramaniyan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the Executing Court, raising the order of attachment in respect of all of the properties mentioned in the Execution Petition.
2. It is seen from the impugned order that the Claim Petitions filed by the third parties have been allowed in respect of Item Nos.1, 2, 4 to 9 of the EP properties. As far as Item No.3 is concerned, the petitioner himself had filed a
CRP No. 6297 of 2026
memo, stating that the said property has been wrongly added in the Execution Petition. Recording the said memo, the Executing Court, by way of the impugned order, raised the order of attachment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the properties in respect of which the Claim Petitions have been allowed, were sold by the Judgment Debtor, after receipt of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, according to the petitioner, the sale effected by the Judgment Debtor after receipt of notice is a fraudulent sale.
4. As far as the plea of fraudulent sale is concerned, it is for the petitioner to raise a specific plea and invite an adjudication by the Court. It is stated that the petitioner raised the said plea in the Claim Petitions filed by the third parties and the same was also adjudicated upon against him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is said to have filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. On the date of impugned order, there was no stay granted by this Court. In such circumstances, when the Claim Petitions are allowed, the Executing Court has no other option, but to raise the order of attachment. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order.
CRP No. 6297 of 2026
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is entitled to work out his remedy in the pending Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order passed in the Claim Petitions, if any.
6. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kak
CRP No. 6297 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. kak CRP No. 6297 of 2026 06-10-2026