1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1320 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 K.Bose .. Petitioner Vs. Krishnasamy .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.361 of 2010 in Original Suit No.195 of 2010 by the Sub Court, Theni. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore For Respondent : Mr.A.Rajaram ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.361 of 2010 in Original Suit No.195 of 2010 by the Sub Court, Theni. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.195 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for getting a money decree, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. In Original Suit No.195 of 2010, an application has been filed under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Interlocutory Application No.361 of 2010, wherein an attachment before Judgment has been passed. Against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.361 of 2010, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has vehemently contended that in Interlocutory Application No.361 of 2010, it has been directed to issue notice to the respondent therein for furnishing security and subsequently the revision petitioner/respondent has made appearance and without giving sufficient opportunity to furnish security, the attachment in question has been passed in Interlocutory Application No.361 of 2010 and under the said circumstances the present Civil Revision Petition is legally maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that in Interlocutory Application No.361 of 2010 all the legal formalities have been observed by the Court below and since the revision petitioner has failed to furnish security as directed in the summons, the property in question has been attached and the Court below has not flouted any existing rules and under the said circumstances the present petition is not legally maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and further the order in question is an appealable order as per the provision of Order XLIII, Rule 1(q) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. For considering the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the nature of steps taken in Interlocutory Application No.361 of 2010 by the Court below. In Interlocutory Application No.361 of 2010, summons has been issued to the respondent therein/revision petitioner for furnishing security. In fact this Court has closely perused the summons, which has been issued to the revision petitioner/respondent, wherein it has been specifically directed to furnish security and further the respondent therein/revision petitioner has been directed to make his appearance on 24.11.2010. On that day one Advocate, by name, Mr.S.K.Murugan has appeared on behalf of the respondent/revision petitioner and since no security has been furnished, the property in question has been attached. Therefore from the proceedings made by the Court below, it is easily discernible that the Court below has not flouted any existing law. Considering the fact that the Court below has not violated nor flouted any existing law, it is needless to say that the present Civil Revision Petition does not come within the contour of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the only remedy available to the revision petitioner is to file regular appeal under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. As stated earlier, the main grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner is that no opportunity has been given so as to furnish security. As narrated earlier, even in the summons issued to the revision petitioner, it has been specifically directed to furnish security and since on the date of appearance the revision petitioner has failed to furnish security, the Court below has rightly followed the existing provisions of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore viewing from any angle, the impugned order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.361 of 2010 in Original Suit No.195 of 2010 by the Sub Court, Theni is confirmed. However the Sub Court, Theni is directed to dispose of Original Suit No.195 of 2010 before the end of February, 2012 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Sub Judge, Theni. +1CC TO MR.A.RAJARAM, ADVOCATE SR.38637 +1CC TO MR.B.BRAJESH KISORE, ADVOCATE SR.38710 Copy to The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Smn : SR : 16.11.2011 : 2p/5c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1320 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 09.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/