SABARIVASEN Vs. T.R.MAHALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holder is the appellant before this Court challenging the order allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein. Before traversing into the details of the petition under appeal it is necessary to briefly allude to the facts of the case. The appellant herein is referred to as the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 4 as claimants and the 5th respondent is referred to as the defendant for the sake of easy comprehension.

(2.) The plaintiff herein had filed a suit OS.No.348 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge Coimbatore for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,42,155.00 together with interest at 12% per annum. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was acquainted with the defendant, a law graduate and on account of this acquaintance the defendant had been borrowing money from the plaintiff. On 30/8/2010 he had borrowed a substantial sum of money stating that he required it for purchasing a property at Siddhapudur. All the payments were made by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of cheques. The total amount that has been given as a loan to the defendant was a sum of Rs.21,40,000.00. This amount has been given to the defendant spread over a period of four months. Thereafter, on 4/10/2010 the defendant had executed a promissory note for the total sum of Rs.21,40,000.00 promising to repay the same on demand. The plaintiff had been repeatedly requesting the defendant to repay the said sum however, the request fell on deaf ears and finally in the 3rd week of June 2013, the defendant had issued a post-dated cheque dtd. 24/6/2013 for the entire principal sum of Rs.21,40,000.00 alone. No amounts were given towards the interest. The plaintiff had presented the said cheque on the assigned date for collection, however it was returned with the endorsement "Account Closed". Therefore, the plaintiff had filed the above suit for recovery of money.

(3.) Along with the suit the plaintiff had also taken out an application for attachment before judgement of the property which is the subject matter of execution. On 22/7/2013 an conditional order of attachment was passed directing the defendant to furnish security on or before 23/8/2013. Since the defendant had failed to furnish security attachment was ordered and the property was attached on 3/9/2013.