Judgment :- Aggrieved against the order of the IX City Civil Court, Chennai made in E.A.No.6967 of 2006, application to raise the attachment of movables made in E.P.No.407 of 2006, the third party has brought forth this Civil Revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The respondent has obtained decree in O.S.No.565 of 2002 against the husband of the revision petitioner and based on which the respondent herein has filed E.P.No.407 of 2006 for realization of the decree amount by way of attachment of movables mentioned therein. Pending the same, E.A.No. 6967 of 2006 was filed by the third party who is the wife of the judgment debtor alleging that the movable properties sought to be attached or the premises from which those movable properties were sought to be attached belonged to her and her husband has no right over any of the same. Under such circumstances, the petitioner herein has prayed to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner and to allow this claim petition by raising the order of attachment dated 16. 2006 passed in E.P.No.407 of 2006. The lower court has dismissed the above E.A.. Aggrieved over the same,the above Civil Revision Petition has been brought forth before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the movable properties actually belonged to the revision petitioner. It is true that she is the wife of the revision petitioner. But, it cannot be a reason to offer her movable properties for attachment of the properties for her husband. Apart from that sufficient documentary evidence were available, but they were not marked in the course of evidence. In other wards, for non production of oral and documentary evidence, an opportunity should be given to her. Hence, the order of attachment has got to be set aside. 5. This Court heard the learned counsel for the respondent on the above contentions. 6. After consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the lower Court is correct in dismissing the application . It is not the fact in controversy that money decree was ordered against the husband of the revision petitioner. 6. After consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the lower Court is correct in dismissing the application . It is not the fact in controversy that money decree was ordered against the husband of the revision petitioner. According to the revision petitioner, the execution appeal filed seeking to raise the attachment is that all the movable properties originally attached by the Court are only belonged to her and it is true that in order to prove the same, no oral or documentary evidence was marked. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that sufficient proof were available, but they were not marked before the Court and for that purpose, an opportunity should be given to her. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the lower Court has got to be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court, for affording opportunity to both sides for production of oral and documentary evidence, to take a correct decision in the matter only to the extent of attachment that was made by the lower Court. 8. With the above observation, the Civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, MP.No.1 of 2007 is closed.