BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 09.08.2023 Pronounced on : 06.12.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.R.P.(MD).No.1264 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD).No.6212 of 2023

1.S.M.Subbiah Chettiar, 2.S.Mariyatha Selvam. ...Petitioners Vs.

Annamalai & Co, Palani, rep. by tis Proprietor A.N.Meiyappan, No.276, Gandhi Salai, Palani Town and Taluk, Dindigul. ...Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair order and decretal order dated 17.04.2023, in I.A.No.116 of 2023 in O.S.No.83 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Court, Palani.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondent : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan ****

O R D E R

This revision is preferred as against the order dated 17.04.2023 in I.A.No.

116 of 2023 in O.S.No.83 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Palani.

2.According to the revision petitioners, the respondent was running a finance company in the name Annamalai & Co. at Palani, in a rental premises. The first petitioner herein, was running a finance company in the name Visalam & Co. at Door No.127, Gandhi Street, Palani. The respondent and the first petitioner belong to the same community and they were associated to their sangam and had good acquaintance. The respondent was permanently residing at Karaikudi and facing trouble in his business and handed over his company to the first petitioner by shifting the same to the place of business of the first petitioner. In 2017, the first petitioner closed his business by merging the same with the respondent's firm and was running the company. On account of his age, he employed his son/the second petitioner, as the Manager of the concern and was running the firm in the name M/s.Annamalai & Co.

3.The respondent did not pay any amount towards rent or salary to the petitioners. The respondent had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- p.m, as rent, for his previous place of business. The first petitioner had borrowed loans from various persons and financed the same to various borrowers. He also conducted auction of jewels after shifting the business in the year 2017 and the said amount was withdrawn by the respondent. The first petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m to the respondent from 31.05.2008 till 25.03.2021 through bank. Apart from that, he had paid to a sum of Rs.10 lakhs in cash whenever the respondent demanded. While so, a dispute arose between the respondent and the first petitioner on account of questioning the respondent, pertaining to the action of the respondent in receiving donations to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs for constructing sangam building for which the amount was collected and given through the first petitioner. The respondent, all of a sudden, issued a legal notice dated 24.05.2022, requesting the first petitioner to hand over the accounts, locker keys and alleging that a sum of Rs.18 lakhs which was earned through auction. A suitable reply was given by the first petitioner on 01.06.2022, objecting to the allegations. The respondent issued a rejoinder on 09.07.2022 and also lodged a police complaint as if the first petitioner threatened to kill him, when the respondent demanded Rs.18 lakhs from the first petitioner, which was admitted by him that he owed the said amount to the respondent in the reply notice. The police had dropped the action, after finding that the said complaint was false. Thereafter, the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.83 of 2023, before the learned Additional District Court, Palani for rendition of accounts and for handing over of the locker keys, account books, etc. The respondent also filed two applications in I.A.No.115 of 2023 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for taking inventory of articles in the said concern and I.A.No.116 of 2023 to deposit a sum of Rs.18 lakhs which is alleged to have been admitted in the reply notice given by the first petitioner. The learned Additional District, Judge by