TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORTION AMBATTUR BRANCH CHENNAI 58 Vs. R ANANDHI V SUGUMAR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation. It is aggrieved by the order passed in an interlocutory application No.22986 of 1997 to restore the application for attachment, which has got to be dismissed.

(2.) The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.9771 of 199 6 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,26,971/- This suit was originally filed in the High Court and thereafter transferred to the City Civil Court,Chennai. Pending suit, the first respondent filed I.A.No.22986 of 1997 for attachment of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which is claimed to be the amount payable by the second respondent to her and which was realised by the petitioner herein in the proceedings initiated for recovering the defaulted amounts from the second respondent. Attachement was ordered. In that application, the petitioner herein filed a counter stating that in respect of the plant and machinery and other properties belonging to the second respondent, there was a pari passu agreement with the third respondent,Bank and therefore, the third respondent was also to be impleaded and as a person necessary to be heard for an effective adjudication of the matter in this case. Originally the application for attachment in I.A.6830/97 was dismissed on 26.9.1998. Thereafter, an application in I.A.7235/99 was filed in April 1999 for restoration of I.A.6830/97 and that was dismissed for default. In this application, the petitioner has raised several grounds including the delay in filing the restoration application etc. The court below has considered none of the submissions made by the petitioner against the order of restoration. The Court below has also not applied its mind with regard to the rights claimed on behalf of the third respondent as a pari passu agreement holder and has straightaway directed the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the third respondent to be kept in deposit in Court till the suit is disposed of. The Court below has also not considered the ground raised in respect of the guarantee given by one Saroja, an another substitution of the claims of the first respondent as against the second respondent.

(3.) Though the matter has been posted for orders, only the counsel for the petitioner is present. Counsel for the respondent/caveator and for Central Bank of India are not present.