1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.311 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 H.Sudha : Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. S.Sonaimuthu : Respondent/Respondent/Defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 19.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.197 of 2010 in Original Suit No.113 of 2010 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 19.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.197 of 2010 in Original Suit No.113 of 2010 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Vadipatti. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.113 of 2010 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a money decree, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant. During pendency of the same, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.197 of 2010 under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to pass an order of attachment before Judgment with regard to the vehicle mentioned therein. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Original Suit No.113 of 2010 as well as the nature of the relief claimed in Interlocutory Application No.197 of 2010 and the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondent and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. It is an admitted fact that Original Suit No.113 of 2010 has been filed for getting a money decree. It is also equally an admitted fact that the petition in question has been filed under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to pass an order of attachment before Judgment with regard to the vehicle mentioned therein. The Court below on 30.06.2010 has directed the respondent to furnish security. The respondent has not furnished any security. But he has filed a detailed counter, wherein he has given an undertaking to the effect that he would not sell the property mentioned in the petition. On the basis of the undertaking given by the respondent, the Court below has dismissed the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.197 of 2010. In fact the earlier order passed by the Court below has not been complied with by the respondent. The Court below without seeing its earlier order has erroneously dismissed the petition in question. Under the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Court below. 5. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the order dated 19.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.197 of 2010 in Original Suit No.113 of 2010 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Vadipatti is set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.197 of 2010 in Original Suit No.113 of 2010 is remitted to the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Vadipatti. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Vadipatti is directed to get security as per order dated 30.06.2010 from the respondent. Failing which, Interlocutory Application No.197 of 2010 should be disposed of on merits. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.311 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 21.02.2011 smn NSV/7.3.11/2P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/