The petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery of money against the respondents 2 to 4 herein. The petitioner, along with the said suit, filed an application for attachment before judgement. The trial Court appears to have passed an order directing the attachment of the property. Subsequently, the first respondent filed a claim petition before the trial Court in I.A.No.42 of 2007 to raise the attachment on the ground that even before the initiation of the suit, the property was transfered by the third respondent. The claim petition was allowed by the trial Court. The Said order is under challenge in this civil revision petition.
2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3.The admitted facts indicate that one month prior to the initiation of the suit by the petitioner, the property in question was transfered by the third respondent to the first respondent, who is none other than her son. The trial Court appears to have passed an order attaching the property before judgment. The first respondent thereafter, filed a claim petition on the ground that the third respondent was not the owner of the property as on the date on which the order of attachment was made by the trial Court. The trial Court having found that the property was transferred in the name of the first respondent even before initiation of the suit, allowed the claim petition. I do not find any illegality in the said order warranting interference by exercising the revisional jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though it was stated that the transfer was made to defeat the decree to be passed in the civil suit filed by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the trial Court was not correct in raising the attachment.
4.The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The District Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector Office, Madurai-20.
.