Madras High Court
CRP/2841/2023 of P. AMUTHA Vs S.R. Balasubramaniam on 26 October 2026
CRP No. 2841 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 2841 of 2023
and CMP No. 17630 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA011291572023}
P. Amutha
W/o. (late) Ponnusamy Door No.59, Pannakadu, Sruiyampalayam Post, Tiruchengode Tk, Namakkal Dt.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. S.R. Balasubramaniam
S/o. S.V. Ramakrishnan, A-4/8, Aiswariyam Phase II, DABC Apartments, Nolambur, Chennai 95.
2. R. Tamilarasan
S/o. Ramasamy, D.No.11, Thailambinagar St, No.1, Tiruchengode Tk, Namakkal Dt.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Order dated 28.11.2022 made in IA No.3 of 2023 in IA
No.1 of 2019 in OS No.119 of 2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge at Tiruchengode and allow this revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.N.Manokaran for
Mr.D.Gopal
For Respondent(s):
No Appearance
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:47 pm )
CRP No. 2841 of 2023
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
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 28.11.2022 passed in IA No.3 of 2023 in IA No.1 of 2019 in OS No.119 of 2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge at Tiruchengode, wherein the application filed by the 1st respondent/third party to raise the attachment ordered by the Court below came to allowed by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.119 of 2016 seeking for the relief of recovery of money against the 2nd respondent/defendant. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed IA No.311 of 2026 seeking for attachment before the judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C. This application was renumbered as IA No.1 of 2019. The Court below directed the defendant to furnish security on or before 15.07.2016. When the matter was taken up on 18.07.2016, since security was not furnished, the Court below passed an attachment order and directed attachment effected by 19.08.2016.
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:47 pm )
CRP No. 2841 of 2023
4. The process of attachment was not able to be completed since the property was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below. Once again, an order came to be passed on 21.04.2017 attaching the very same property.
5. In the meantime, the 1st respondent/third party seems to have purchased the suit property from the defendant on 02.03.2017. He filed IA No.3 of 2022 for raising the order of attachment.
6. The Court below allowed the application and raised the attachment and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
7. In the considered view of this Court, there is no dispute regarding the fact that, even though the order of attachment was passed, the same was not communicated to the Registration Office, as mandated under Order XXXVIII Rule 11B of C.P.C. This issue was dealt with by this Court in R.Karuppannan vs. Natarajan and others reported in 2024 2 CTC 594, wherein it was held that communication of the order of attachment to the concerned Registration Officer is mandatory and that failure to comply with the said requirement would render the order of attachment ineffective and without force.
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:47 pm )
CRP No. 2841 of 2023
8. As on the date of purchase of the property by the 1st respondent/third party on 02.03.2017, the order of attachment had not been properly effected as per the mandate under Order XXXVIII Rule 11B of C.P.C. Therefore, as on the date of purchase, the order of attachment did not have any effect or force. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below can be sustained on this ground.
9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:47 pm )
CRP No. 2841 of 2023
To The II Additional District Judge, Tiruchengode.
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:47 pm )
CRP No. 2841 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR CRP No. 2841 of 2023 26-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:47 pm )