CRP/6112/2026 of Elaiyaraja Vs Rajaprabhu on 5 October 2026

Order

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.286 of 2024 wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C seeking attachment before Judgment came to be rejected by the Court below mainly on the ground that property had already been sold by the defendant in favour of a third party for valuable consideration on 04.12.2024 itself. Therefore, there is no ground to attach the property which had already been sold.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the

CRP No. 6112 of 2026

materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.286 of 2024 seeking for the relief of recovery of money. In the year 2025, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.1 of 2025 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C seeking for an order of attachment before judgment. This was on the ground that there was only one immovable property available and the defendant was making active arrangements to sell the property. In view of the same, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondent/defendant to furnish security for the suit claim and on failing to do so, to attach the property.

4. By the time, this application was numbered and taken up for hearing, the property had already been sold on 04.12.2024 itself to the third party. Under such circumstances, the Court below held that the respondent/defendant is no more the owner of the property and there was no question of seeking for attachment before judgment. The said order has been put to challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in [Annakkili Ayyanar Vs. Murugan Govindan] reported in AIR 2022 Madras 63 and contended that the alienation of the property was hit by the principle of lis pendens.

CRP No. 6112 of 2026

6. In the considered view of this Court, the concept of lis pendens does not apply in a suit for recovery of money. The judgment that was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was held to be per incuriam by this Court in [Gunaseelan and others Vs.P.Perumal and others] reported in 2025 2 CTC 509. It was held that in a suit for recovery of money, there is no question of applying the principle of lis pendens.

7. In view of the above, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court. However, it is left open to the petitioner to identify any other property belonging to the respondent/defendant and seek for furnishing of security and on failure to do so, to seek for attachment before judgment. Except giving this liberty, no further orders can be passed in this Civil Revision Petition.

8. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms and considering the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2024, there shall be direction to the learned Principal District Judge, Kallakurichi to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Neutral Citation: Yes RKA To, The Principal District Judge at Kallakurichi.

CRP No. 6112 of 2026

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CRP No. 6112 of 2026 05-10-2026