The court ruled that a decree against a Society is inexecutable due to non-compliance with mandatory representation provisions, and strict adherence to procedural rules under CPC is necessary for execution.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant and 1st judgment debtor in the execution proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent/decree holder.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.P.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the respondents in both the revision petitions.

3. The brief facts, that are necessary to adjudicate the revision, are as follows:

(a) The 1st respondent/decree holder filed a suit in O.S.No.61 of 2005 before the Principal District Judge, Vellore, which was later transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.136 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vellore. The suit came to be decreed on 21.09.2013, directing the defendants to pay Rs.7,20,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit. The defendants preferred A.S.No.3 of 2012 before the I Additional District Court, Vellore. The said appeal was partly allowed and the 1st defendant alone was held to be liable and the decree against the other defendants was set aside.

(b) Subsequent to disposal of AS.No.3 of 2012, the decree holder filed E.P.No.60 of 2013 for recovery of Rs.11,96,382/- by bringing the property belonging to the petitioner Society for sale. The revision petitioner was set ex-parte in the execution proceedings on 15.04.2015 and the property came to be attached on 29.08.2015. In the meantime, he also filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.644 of 2013, challenging the decree in A.S.No.3 of 2013. The said S.A.No.644 of 2013 also came to be dismissed on 19.04.2023 and a Special Leave Petition (c) No.21930 of 2023 was also dismissed on 15.12.2023, pending the execution proceedings.

(c) Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed an application in E.A.No.1 of 2023 under Section 47 of CPC, questioning the executability of the decree, as against which order, RP.No.639 of 2025 has been filed and he also filed E.A.No.6 of 2024, seeking permission to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,781/- and aggrieved by the dismissal of said E.A.No.6 of 2024, RP.No.640 of 2025 has been filed. Admittedly, the property has been sold on 14.08.2023.

4. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the suit promissory note having been executed by the defendants 2, 3 and 5, claiming themselves to be the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the petitioner Society, cannot make the Society liable for the borrowing made by them, when the petitioner had admittedly not executed the promissory note. He would further contend that the suit has been filed against the revision petitioner Society which is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and there has been non-compliance of Section 20 of the Act and on this ground alone, the decree cannot be executed and even in terms of Section 18 of the Act, when the properties of the Society vest with the Committee, the legal proceedings by or against the Society can be done only by the Committee or the officer authorised in this regard in the bylaws.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to Section 21 of the Act, which states that the judgment passed against any officer referred to in Section 20 (1) of the Act, cannot be enforced against the property or against the body of such officer, but against the property of the Society and admittedly, in the present case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no decree has been passed against the officer authorised to defend the suit in the bylaws. He would therefore state that when the bylaws of the Society did not authorise anyone to prosecute or defend the proceedings and only in Ex.P2 dated 15.03.2020, clause 31 was inserted by way of amend