M. VELUCHAMY GOUNDER AND ANOTHER Vs. K. MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision arises under the following circumstances: The respondent -decree-holder filed E.A. No. 258 of 1978 in E.P. No. 152 of 1978 in O.S. No. 172 of 1977, under S. 145, C.P.C. to direct the revision petitioners to produce the attached movables, which are in their custody, failing which accessory orders may be passed permitting the decree -holder to proceed against the revision petitioners-sureties. The said suit was originally dismissed for default on 6th December; 1977. Later, the order of dismissal was set aside and the suit was restored to file and the suit was decreed export on 29th March, 1978. The movable properties of the judgment -debtor were attached before judgment rot on 30th September, 1977, as evidenced by Exs.A.1 to A. 3 and A.7, since the defendant did not furnish security.

(2.) The first petitioner herein took possession of the movables attached before judgment and petitioner 1 and 2 executed surety bonds as evidenced by Exs.A.5 and A. 6 for the satisfaction of the suit amount. The judgment -debtor contested the attachment and after contest, the attachment was made absolute on 12th December, 1977. The decree -holder levied execution against the judgment -debtor by way of arrest in E.P.79 of 1978 and arrest was ordered and the defendant -judgment -debtor filed I.P. No. 12 of 1978 on 22nd September, 1978 and asked for interim protection. The same was ordered and the execution petition was closed. Thereafter, the application against the sureties for the same relief was filed. It was contended on behalf of the sureties that inasmuch as the suit was dismissed for default on 6th December, 1977, the attachment ceased and consequent to the cessation of that attachment, their liability to purchase the movables as undertaken in terms of Exs.A.5 and A.6 also ceased. Therefore, the application by the decree -holder was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge of Udumalpet overruled this objection and granted permission to proceed against the present petitioners, who stood sureties for the production of the movables under Exs.A.5 and A.6, for the realization of the decree debt. It is under these circumstances, the present revision has been preferred.