Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Per contra, the case of the defendant, in brief, is this:

She had never borrowed any amount much less the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff. It is false to say that she had executed the suit promissory note. It is a rank forgery. Therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to demand the defendant to repay the alleged debt. The allegations in the plaint and the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking attachment before judgment are invented. The said allegations are denied. This defendant has no intention to defraud anybody. This defendant had already filed, along with her application, an affidavit undertaking not to sell the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The third party affidavits and the contents therein are created for the purpose of the petition filed by the plaintiff. The application for attachment before judgment is filed by the plaintiff only with an intention to achieve an illegal object. The mandatory provisions of law, which govern the grant of an order of attachment, are not complied with. Since this defendant has no intention to sell the property and has given an affidavit undertaking not to alienate the property till the disposal of the suit and had further undertaken to abide by the orders that may be passed by the Court while accepting the undertaking, the undertaking may be accepted and the interim order of attachment may be raised in the interests of justice as otherwise the defendant would suffer serious and irreparable loss. The Court below had rightly accepted the undertaking of the defendant and had rightly raised the interim order of attachment; as the undertaking given by the defendant and accepted by the Court below adequately protects the interests of both the parties and as the said orders are passed on equitable consideration, the said orders impugned in these revisions do not call for interference.