1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2011 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH A. No.3305 of 2011 in C.S. No.489 of 2011 1. R.Krishnan, S/o.V.S.Ramaswami Iyer, 2. Swarna Krishnan, rep. by her Power of Attorney Agent, Mr.R.Krishnan, 1 & 2 are residing at No.2/C, II Floor, 28, Pycrofts Garden Road, Thousand Lights,Chennai-600 006... Applicants/Plaintiffs -Versus- 1. Ramalingam Neelakantan, 4921 Quail Ridge Drive, Plainsborow, New Jersey 08536 U.S.A. 2. Mallika Neelakantan, B.6, Thiruchendur Apartments, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033....Respondents/Defendants Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order directing the first and 2nd respondents/defendants to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim jointly and severely at the first instance on a date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, failing which directing attachment of the immovable property before judgment belonging to the 1st and 2nd defendants morefully described in the schedules appended to the Judge's Summons by communicating the order of attachment to the defendants 1 and 2 herein and the Registering authority within jurisdiction the property is located pending disposal of the above suit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 This application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order: Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the affidavit. Prima facie case made out. 2. The application has been filed by the applicant seeking for a direction against the 2nd respondent to furnish a security to the extent of the suit claim jointly and severally at the first instance on a date to be fixed by this Court, failing which, directing attachment of the immovable property. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant would also stress in his argument that if the immovable property described in the schedule of the Judge's summons is not attached, certainly the respondents would alienate it and the applicant will be left remediless to pursue his claim and therefore, an order of attachment of the said immovable property mentioned in the schedule may be passed. 4. I could see some strength in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. Therefore, it has become necessary to pass an order against the respondents directing them to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim jointly and severally at the first instance on or before 08.08.2011, failing which an order of attachment will be passed by this Court. 5. Notice to the respondents informing this order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 returnable by 05.08.2011. The applicant is directed to communicate this order to the respondents in any one of the modes of service, as contemplated in law, on or before 05.08.2011 and shall produce the proof before the Court. 6. The Registry is directed to verify as to the furnishing of security and to post the case on 11.08.2011 with the particulars of security, if any, submitted by the respondents. Sd/-V.K.S.J 22.07.2011 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2012. R.s/14.03.2012 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/