SEHINI VENKATA RAMESH Vs. BARATAM DURGA PRASAD RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a defendant in O.S. No. 86 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 89,240/- based on a promissory note. Along with the said suit, the respondent plaintiff filed an application being I.A. No. 152 of 2001 under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) seeking attachment before judgment. The trial Court by proceedings dated 23-3-2001 directed the defendant to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 89,240/- (Rupees eighty nine thousand two hundred forty only) and also to show cause as to why he should not furnish such security within forty eight hours. A warrant was duly issued to be served through bailiff of the Court. Even before the same could be served, it appears the father of the petitioner, who is practising advocate in Srikakulam, furnished security for the sum as directed by the trial Court and thereafter in obedience to subsequent memo issued by the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, the Court bailiff returned the warrant of attachment.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 943 of 2004 seeking leave of the Court under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC to permit the petitioner to file additional written statement. By impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Be it also noted that in the additional written statement, the petitioner herein soughfto make counter claim for an amount of Rs. 50,0007- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards damages for undesirable attachment obtained by the respondent allegedly making false allegations.

(3.) The learned couruel for the petitioner, Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, submits that the petitioner and his father are living in the same house, that the famiiv possessed property worth about Rs. 50 lakhs, but so as to defame and degrade the family, the respondent got issued a notice under Order XXXVIil Rule 5 causing immense damage to the reputation of the family, that the petitioner is entitled to seek compensation for such attachment on false grounds and therefore the petitioner is justified in filing additional written statement. According to the learned counsel, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the lower Court ought to have allowed the additional written statement, in which the petitioner made a counter claim of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only).