RAJENDRAN Vs. RESHNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order dtd. 18/3/2024 in I.A. No. 8 of 2024 in O.S. No. 27 of 2021 of the Sub Court, Mavelikara. Appellant was the counter petitioner in the I.A and defendant in the suit. The respondent was the petitioner in the I.A. and plaintiff in the suit. Parties are referred to hereinafter as per their status in the suit.

(2.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff for realization of Rs.20,00,500.00 with interest from the defendant by charging upon his assets. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant and his wife are conducting a private school. For the development of the school, they borrowed money from the plaintiff. On 25/9/2017, an amount of Rs.17,50,000.00 was borrowed and an agreement was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff stipulating the terms of repayment and interest. However, the said agreement was breached by the defendant and amounts due were not paid to the plaintiff. A legal notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant demanding principal amount and balance interest. However, the defendant did not settle the outstanding. Hence, the suit was filed. A petition seeking to attach the property of the defendant was filed along with the suit. However, the defendant managed to defeat the claim and the attached property is now found insufficient to meet the claim amount. The plaintiff later received information regarding some other property over which the defendant has title and she got reliable information that the defendant is attempting to alienate the same as well. Hence I.A. No.8 of 2024 was filed seeking an order of attachment over the relevant property, so as to secure the suit amount. The defendant filed an objection to the I.A., inter alia pointing out that the objective of the plaintiff in filing an attachment petition again and seeking to attach another property is to coerce the defendant to settle the suit. The I.A. had been filed by the plaintiff suppressing material facts in her pleadings. Suppression had been allegedly made by the plaintiff in the earlier I.A. seeking attachment too. The Sub Court, after hearing the parties, rendered the impugned order allowing the petition filed by the plaintiff and attaching the property detailed in the schedule appended to the I.A. The said order is challenged by the defendant in this FAO.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the plaintiff producing therewith Annexures R(a) to R(d).