IN THE COURT OF THE SUB-ORDINATE JUDGE AT GUDIYATTAM
I.A.NO. 2/2024 IN O.S.NO.40/2024
Arun @ Murali ...Petitioner/Plaintiff
-Vs-
Santhanam
...Respondent/Defendant
UNDERTAKING AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
I, Santhanam, S/o.Punniyakotti, aged about 45 years, residing at
D.No.4/13, Rajaveedhi, Naveethampatti Village, Melpatti Post, Pernambut
Taluk, Vellore District, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as
follows:
…2…
1. I am the respondent herein and the defendant in the original suit.
2. I state that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the above said suit against
me for recovery of money based on alleged promissory note dated 08-01-2023
3. I further state that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this application for
attachment before judgment of the petition mentioned property as such I am
going to alienate the petition mentioned property to third parties and all the
allegations setouts in the affidavit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff are false and
frivolous and imaginary one as such I have going to defraud the
petitioner/plaintiff by way of trying to sell the petition mentioned property to
third parties.
4. I further states that originally the petition mentioned property was
purchased by me by way of a registered sale deed dated 03-02-2022 for valid
and binding consideration and since the date of purchase I have been in
possession and enjoyment of the same. The question of attempting to create
encumbrance over the property does not arise. However I am giving
undertaking before this Hon’ble Court that I will not alienate the petition
mentioned properties and there is no necessity for me to alienate the same.
5. I further state that at any point of time I am not going to alienate the
petition mentioned property to third persons and there is no any necessity for
me to sell or alienate the petition mentioned property to any third persons.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept my
undertaking that I will not alienate the petition mentioned property and this
Hon’ble Court may close the petition and pass such other necessary orders as
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
RESPONDENT
Solemnly affirmed and signed before me at Gudiyattam on 19-03-2024
ADVOCATE
IN THE COURT OF THE SUB-ORDINATE JUDGE AT GUDIYATTAM
I.A.NO. 2/2024 IN O.S.NO.40/2024
Arun @ Murali ...Petitioner/Plaintiff
-Vs-
Santhanam
...Respondent/Defendant
COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1. The application for attachment before judgment as such filed by the
petitioner is not at all sustainable either in law or on facts.
2. This respondent denies each and every allegations made in the affidavit
as the same is false.
3. This respondent further submits that the allegations made in the
affidavit namely this respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for my
urgent family necessities from the petitioner on 08-01-2023 and agreed to repay
the said amount along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and this
respondent has also executed a suit pronote dated 08-01-2023 infavour of the
petitioner and thereafter this respondent has failed to repay the said amount and
interest inspite of repeated demand and request made by the petitioner and this
respondent is attempting to alienate the petition mentioned property and if this
respondent alienated the same the petitioner will be put to great loss and
hardship and she could not able to recover the amount and alleged cause of
action and this respondent give register undertaking before this Hon’ble Court
are all hereby specifically and categorically denied and the same is false.
4. This respondent further submits that the petitioner as such filed the
present application with bald allegations without any proof of documents to
prove his contention regarding alienation and creation of encumbrance over the
property as alleged in the affidavit. The petitioner without prove his contention
as alleged in the present application the properties could not be attached.
5. This respondent further submits that the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5
could not be used as a leaver to coerce this respondent. The petitioner has failed
to fulfill the features of the provisions of under order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C., and it
cannot be used as a tool to furnish security and not to create encumbrance over
the property.
6. This respondent further states that originally the petition mentioned
property was the property of me and I have purchased the same and thereby I
have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The question of attempting
to create encumbrance over the property does not arise.
7. This respondent further submits that he never borrowed any amount
from the plaintiff and he never executed promissory note infavour of the
plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. Infact there is no liability to the petitioner by
this respondent as alleged in the plaint. The petition was not filed according to
provisions of order 38 Rule 5 and the same was against the law and the
petitioner has not complied the guidelines under the provision of order 38 Rule
5 of C.P.C.
8. This respondent further submits that there is no necessity to this
respondent to sell the property as alleged in the petition. However the
respondent has not alienate or create encumbrance over the properties and
thereby given undertaking. The respondent further submits that he has not
attempted to sell the property and he undertake to not to alienate the property.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the
petition with cost.
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
I, the respondent do hereby declare that the facts stated above are true to
the best of my knowledge and belief and I signed in this verification at
Gudiyattam on 19-03-2024
RESPONDENT
