A.G.RAVI Vs. JANAKIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the rejection of memo in E.P.No.146 of 2016 in O.S.No.37 of 2013 dtd. 7/9/2019 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Vellore.

(2.) The memo was filed by the petitioner to sell the petition schedule mentioned property for realising the decree amount. It is averred in the memo that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of sale agreement dtd. 15/5/2012 in respect of the property in S.No.80/1k. Petitioner came to know that S.No.80/1k mentioned in respondent's sale deed dtd. 9/2/2012 is not connected with the suit property and the correct survey number is 81/1 and 69/C3. Petitioner filed I.A.No.57 of 2013 under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for attachment before judgment in the suit, giving the correct S.Nos.81/1 and 69/C3. That petition was allowed and the attachment was effected on 20/7/2013. Execution Petition was also filed for selling the property attached. Central Nazir Sec. expressed difficulty in bringing the property for sale because of discrepancy in S.Nos. Therefore, the aforesaid memo was filed. The respondent objected this memo on the ground that it is not maintainable. Property in S.Nos.81/1k was not attached by the petitioner and the attempt made to sell the property in S.No.81/1k cannot be entertained. The learned Judge, after considering the rival submissions, rejected the memo on the ground that the suit property was shown as S.No.80/1. The properties attached are not suit properties and therefore, they cannot be brought for sale. Against the said rejection of memo, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed suit for return of advance amount and it was decreed. Effectively it is a money decree. During the pendency of the suit, application for attachment of the property before judgment was filed and that was allowed. After the suit was decreed, Execution Petition was filed for selling the property for realising the decree amount, which was attached before judgment in I.A.No.57 of 2013. Therefore, rejection of memo for bringing the properties, mentioned in Execution Petition, for sale is not correct and therefore, the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge in the memo has to be set aside. Further proceedings in the Execution Petition be directed.