A. CHINNASAMY Vs. SYEDSHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the 1 st respondent seeking raising of attachment before judgment.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed a suit for recovery of money against the 2 nd respondent. Pending suit, he filed an application in I.A.No.987 of 2014 seeking attachment before judgment of the property belonging to the 2 nd respondent. In the said application, notice was ordered to the 2 nd respondent. The 2 nd respondent entered into sale agreement to convey the property, in respect of which attachment was sought for, in favour of power agent of the 1 st respondent and his mother, Heera Begum. On acquiring knowledge about the said agreement, the petitioner's counsel issued a notice to said Heera Begum on 1/12/2014 informing her about the suit for recovery of money filed by him against the respondent in O.S.No.343 of 2014 and the pendency of the petition filed by him for attachment before judgment against the property in respect of which agreement of sale was entered by her with 2 nd respondent. After receipt of said notice, the power agent of the 1 st respondent, Heera Begum issued a reply to petitioner's counsel on 20/12/2014 stating that the registered sale agreement entered between her and 2 nd respondent on 20/10/2014 was cancelled on 10/12/2014. Thereafter, the Trial Court passed an order of attachment before judgment in I.A.No.987 of 2014 in O.S.No.343 of 2014 on 22/2/2016. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent herein filed instant application in I.A.No.506 of 2016 seeking raising of attachment on the ground that he purchased the said property from 2 nd respondent on 10/12/2014 itself. Therefore, the 1 st respondent prayed for raising of attachment mainly on the ground that he got the sale deed in his favour even prior to the date of attachment.

(3.) The Court below by impugned order allowed the application filed by the 1 st respondent on the ground that he purchased the property even prior to the attachment and hence, raised the attachment. In the case on hand as narrated above, when pendency of the suit as well as petition for attachment before judgment were brought to the notice of 1 st respondent's power agent and his mother, Heera Begum, by way of legal notice issued by petitioner's counsel, she sent a reply on 20/12/2014 stating that agreement of sale entered by her with 2 nd respondent was cancelled on 10/12/2014. From the acknowledgement card filed in the typed set of papers, it is clear that the above notice was received by power agent of 1 st respondent on 4/12/2014. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent herein filed the present claim petition seeking raising of attachment on the ground that he purchased the property on 10/12/2014 itself.