C. ANGULAKSHMI Vs. P. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment debtor in O.S.No.6886 of 2005 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree passed in the above said suit is one for recovery of money and it is also an ex parte decree passed on 10.11.2005. For executing the decree and realizing the decree amount, the respondent herein/decree holder initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.4392 of 2011 on the file of the Executing Court, namely the Court of the X Assistant Judge,. City Civil Court, chennai praying for the attachment of the property described in the schedule provided to the execution petition and sale of the same on the ground that the said property belongs to the revision petitioner / judgment debtor. The Revision Petitioner / Judgment Debtor, after receiving notice in the Execution Petition, resisted the Execution Petition contending that the property sought to be attached, though owned by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor, was sold to a third party even before the passing of the decree and that hence, the said property is not available for attachment in execution of the decree.

(2.) The learned Executing Judge, observing that no document was produced to substantiate the claim of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor that the property had been sold by her on 23.08.2005 itself as claimed by her, chose to pass an order directing attachment of the property rejecting the objection raised by the revision petitioner/ judgment debtor. As against the said order, the judgment debtor has chosen to prefer the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that when an averment has been made by the judgment debtor that the property is no longer available with the judgment debtor and it has been sold to a third party, the Executing Court, without verifying the same and without giving notice to the alleged purchaser, ought not to have passed an order directing attachment of the property and that the same is the only reason on which the impugned order of the Executing Court is challenged in the present revision.