Y.KESAVULU Vs. T.KALAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The CRP.no.4978 of 2015, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the order dated 01.09.2015 of the learned IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor passed in IA.no.17 of 2014 in OS.no.29 of 2014 filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code, for brevity) requesting to order attachment before judgment of the petition schedule property. 1.1 The CRP.no.4915 of 2015, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is also filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 01.09.2015 passed in IA.no.19 of 2014 in IA.no.17 of 2014 in the aforementioned suit filed by the defendant under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code requesting the Court to accept the undertaking given by him in the above mentioned application filed for attachment before judgment and not to order attachment of the petition schedule property.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff (the plaintiff, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant (the defendant, for brevity). I have perused the material record.

(3.) The facts, which are necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff having brought a suit against the defendant for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note for Rs.10,00,000/ - had filed an interlocutory application in IA.no.17 of 2014 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code requesting to order attachment before judgment of the property of the defendant viz., a residential house bearing municipal bearing no.14 -1208 (part) Ground floor, RCC house, first floor ACC sheet with vacant house site situate within the respective boundaries stated in the schedule annexed to the petition. The trial Court granted an ex parte interim order in the aforementioned interlocutory application by directing the defendant to furnish security for a sum of Rs.11.00 lakhs or to appear and show cause why she should not furnish security within 48 hours after the receipt of the notice in the said application. In the said interim orders, the trial Court had also directed that the property shall be attached on failure of the defendant to either furnish security or showing cause for not furnishing such security. The defendant while resisting the said application by filing a counter had also filed the other interlocutory application in IA.no.19 of 2014 requesting the Court to raise the interim order of attachment and dismiss the petition filed by the plaintiff for attachment before judgment of the petition schedule property after accepting the undertaking given by her to the effect that she would not alienate the property. That application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a counter. The trial Court by separate orders dated 01.09.2015, disposed of both the applications; the application filed by the defendant was allowed; and, after duly accepting the undertaking given by the defendant, the interim order of attachment before judgment of the petition schedule property was raised. Therefore, the aggrieved plaintiff filed these two revision petitions before this Court.