This is a civil revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an attachment order in execution proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding there were no merits to the challenge against the impugned order.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P(MD)No.1432 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P(MD)No.1432 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.7149 of 2023
1.Karuppasamy Velmayil
2.Kannan Karuppasamy
...Petitioners
Vs.
HDFC Bank Limited, Chennai through its Power Agent of N.Maharajan, No.110, Jeepras Building, Amainthakarai, Chennai – 600 029.
... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order passed in E.P.No.164 of 2020 in A.R.C.No.1739 2017 dated 03.08.2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kumar For 1st Respondent : Mr.A.Anbakkan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order passed in E.P.No.164 of 2020 in A.R.C.No.1739 2017 dated 03.08.2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli.
1/4
C.R.P(MD)No.1432 of 2023
2.The only grounds on which the present civil revision petition, has been filed are reads as under:-
“2.The Courts below has failed to frame proper points in this
case.
3.The Courts below failed to apply proper principles of law applicable to the present fact of the case.
4.The Courts below failed to understand and appreciate the case of the appellant.
5.The Executing Court ought to have held that the respondent herein to prove that the movable properties mentioned in the petition belongs to the appellants, hence, the respondent is not entitled to the order of attachment.
6.The Executing Court ought to have held that non-production of documents by the respondent to prove ownership of the appellants on the movable properties sought to be attached is fatal to the case of the respondent.
7.The Executing Court ought not to have held that statement made in proof affidavit of RW1 that, he is residing in petition schedule property would not sufficient to hold that all movable properties belongs to appellant by assumption and presumption.
8.The Executing Court without any proof passed an order of attachment which is against law.”
3.The petitioner has no other grounds to persuade this Court to interfere with the order passed as early as on 03.08.2022 in E.P.No.164 of 2020.
4.The intention of the petitioner appears to be is only to delay the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/4
C.R.P(MD)No.1432 of 2023
proceedings. There is no merits to challenge the impugned order.
5.In view of the above, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.06.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Mrn
To
1.The Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
3/4
C.R.P(MD)No.1432 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN,J.
Mrn
C.R.P(MD)No.1432 of 2023
23.06.2023
4/4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Executing Court failed to frame proper points and apply proper principles of law.
Whether non-production of documents by the respondent regarding ownership of movable properties is fatal.
Whether the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution can be allowed to set aside the order.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Karuppasamy Velmayil
Kannan Karuppasamy
HDFC Bank Limited
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
