IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 12.01.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. AUTHINATHAN O.S.A.No.119 of 2013 S. Kesavan Appellant Vs
1. City Union Bank Chrompet Branch, 77, Station Road, First Floor, Radha Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai 600 044 rep by its Branch Manager,
2. Mrs.Uma Rengan
3. K.S. Srinivasa Rengan Respondents Appeal filed Under Order 36 R.1 of Original Side Rules r/w clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge made in Application No.5503 of 2012 dated 19.12.2012 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.R. K. Kannan For 1st respondent: Mr.R.S. Varadarajan for M/s Ram & Rajan Associates For R.2 & R.3 : Notice returned JUDGMENT [Judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit in C.S.No.1189 of 2009 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. That suit has been filed against the respondents 2 and 3 herein for recovery of Rs.42,00,000/- with interest, which is due under a Pronote, allegedly executed by respondents 2 and 3 herein. During the pendency of the said suit, this Court granted an order of attachment of the immovable property, belonging to the respondents 2 and 3.
2. The first respondent/City Union Bank Limited alleges that the same immovable property had been mortgaged to the bank for securing loan and for recovery of the amount. Proceedings were pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal, wherein, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has issued recovery Sale Certificate. Based on the same, the first respondent/City Union Bank filed an application in A.No.5503/2012 for raising the attachment made by this Court. By order dated 19.12.2012 the learned Single Judge of this Court raised attachment. Challenging the same, the appellant have come up with this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the records carefully.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that subsequent to the impugned order, one property has been sold in auction. Further, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, mortgage of these properties was prior in point of time to the date of attachment ordered by this court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly clarified and disposed of the application. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the clarification made by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. We find no merit in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(S.N.J.,) (N.A.N.J.,) 12-01-2017 Index : Yes/no Internet : Yes/no sr
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
And
N. AUTHINATHAN,J.,
sr To The Sub Assistant Registrar, (Original Side), High Court, Chennai.
O.S.A No.119 of 2013 12.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in