KALIANNA KOUNDER Vs. MARAPPA KOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeal are against the orders passed in I. A. No. 775 of 1991 in O. S. No. 231 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sankari.

(2.) THE short facts are: THE respondent herein had filed the suit on a promissory note against the first revision petitioner and had also filed a petition in I. A. No. 775 of 1991 for attachment before judgment. In that petition, the first petitioner in the civil revision petition who was the defendant in the suit and the second revision petitioner in C. RP. No. 1638 of 1992 who was a third party in the suit, had offered the properties belonging to the second revision petitioner/third party as security. Learned Subordinate judge had rejected it stating that the property offered by the third party as security cannot be accepted. Aggrieved by that order, C. R. P. No. 1638 of 1992 is filed by the defendant as well as the third party, as revision petitioners. After rejecting the security offered by the third-party, learned Subordinate judge, has passed an order of attachment. Aggrieved by the order of attachment before judgment, C. M. A. No. 509 of 1992 is filed.

(3.) INASMUCH as I have held that the properly furnished by a third-party can be accepted as security, the next stage would be whether it would be sufficient enough to discharge the decree that may be passed, if the defendant fails to produce the property which is sought to be attached or value of the same. So the matter has necessarily to be remitted back to the trial court and the trial court shall consider whether the property offered by the secu-rity is enough to discharge the decree that may be passed if the defendant fails to produce the property which is sought to be attached or value of the same, after hearing the objections in this regard by the plaintiff.