Dismissed

C.Muniandi v. v.Chandra Sekaran

Madras HC4 Mar 2020CRP(MD)/1822/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a Civil Revision Petition filed by a bank employee respondent against an order directing payment of decree money via monthly installments. The court held the revision was an attempt to defeat the decree-holder’s rights, noting the petitioner’s failure to verify salary details or produce evidence despite the matter’s eight-year pendency.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed as devoid of merit. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

C.Muniandi Vs v.Chandra Sekaran — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1822 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1822 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 C.Muniandi : Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant

¶3

.. Vs .. V.Chandrasekaran : Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶4

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the Order passed in E.P.No.30 of 2012 in O.S.No.429 of 2009 dated 19.06.2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul and allow this Revision Petition.

¶5

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondent : No appearnce

¶6

ORDER

¶7

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in E.P.No.30 of 2012. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.429 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

¶8

2.The respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.85,675/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the basis of the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. The said suit was decreed by the learned Principal District Munsif by judgment and decree dated 03.12.2011. After the decree in the suit, the decree-holder filed an execution petition in E.P.No.30 of 2012 in O.S.No.429 of 2009. In the execution petition, after recording the fact that the petitioner is working as a Post Master in the Postal Department, passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/as monthly installment till the discharge of the loan. It is against the order directing the petitioner to pay the money in installment at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, the above Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶9

3.The liability of the petitioner to pay the entire decretal amount as per the decree is not in dispute. It is not brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has filed any appeal as against the decree of the trial Court. The contention of the petitioner is that under Section 60(i) of the Civil Procedure Code, the salary to the extent of first one thousand rupees and 2/3 of the reminder cannot be attached. Stating that the petitioner's take home is only Rs.1,835/- as salary, the above Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The petitioner has not produced before the lower Court any

¶11

1/2

¶12

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1822 of 2012

¶13

document to convince the lower Court that major part of the salary is attached. The details of the attachment and the money deducted from the account of the petitioner is also not given. It is to be seen that the petition filed by the decree-holder was allowed by order dated 19.06.2012. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that he could not verify the present status cannot be accepted especially when the matter is pending for more than eight years. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Civil Revision Petition is nothing but to defeat the rights of the decree-holder to recover the amount due. After considerable delay, the salary of the petitioner also must have been revised. The petitioner's counsel is unable to ascertain the present status. As a result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶14

SRM

¶15

To The Principal District Munsif, Dindigul.

¶16

Copy to: The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 2 copies +1 CC to M/s.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, Advocate ( SR-10108[F]

¶17

SMA/08/05/2020/2P/5C

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

2/2

C.Muniandi v. v.Chandra Sekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Muniandi v. v.Chandra Sekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayyanar Vs Radhakrishnan

Selvamani Vs Sobana Bai

P.Priyadharsini Vs Canara Bank Having Its Head

Solaimalai Vs Chandrasekaran

The Deputy Registrar of Vs a.C.Anbanantham

Nagore Gani Vs Thajunnisa Beguam