MURALIKRISHNAN Vs. M. SHANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the Revision Petitions have been filed by the Decree-holder in a money Suit challenging the allowing of Claim Petitions filed under Order 38, Rule 10 of C.P.C.

(2.) The Revision Petitioner as Plaintiff had filed O.S. No.72 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.8,00,000..00 Pending Suit, the Plaintiff had filed I.A. No.91 of 2009 seeking an Order of Attachment before Judgment. The said Application was allowed on 28/10/2009. The Suit was decreed ex parte on 15/2/2010. The Decree-holder filed E.P. No.1 of 2013 to bring the attached property for sale.

(3.) While the Execution Petitions were pending, seven Claim Petitions in I.A. Nos.12 to 18 of 2013 were filed by seven Claimants contending that all of them have purchased the property on 23/4/2008 from the Defendants through his Power Agent. They have further contended that they had purchased the property one year prior to the filing of the Suit and therefore, on the date of passing of the Order of Attachment before Judgment, the Defendant was not the Owner of the property. Hence, we prayed for rasing the Order of Attachment. All these seven Interim Applications were filed in I.A. No.91 of 2009.