##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Order reserved on : 06.01.2026 Order pronounced on : 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP.No.1864 of 2020

Ganesan ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.K.Sengottaiyan

2.Arunachalam

3.K.Palanisamy

4.Palaniammal

5.Ganesan

6.Muthusamy

7.Ganesh

8.Sampathkumar

9.Mohan Kumar

10.Mohanavel

11.Ponnusamy

12.Kaliyammal

13.M.Saruvamalai ...

Respondents

[R13 impleaded vide order dated

01.04.2024 in CMP.No.39 of 2021

in Crp.nO.1864 OF 2020]

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.55 of 2010 in

I.P.No.16 of 1988 dated 19.12.2019 pending on the file of the learned

Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:47:38 pm )

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathi

For Respondents : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar for R12

Mr.K.Myilsamy for R13

No appearance for RR1, 3, 8 & 11

R7 died (steps taken)

RR 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10 not ready in notice

ORDER

The judgment debtor in insolvency proceedings is the revision

petition.

2.I have heard Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner, Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the 12^th respondent

and Mr.K.Myilsamy, learned counsel for the contesting 13^th respondent.

3.Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would

contended that the revision petitioner was declared insolvent, at his

instance in insolvency proceedings in I.P.No.11 of 1989 on the file of the

Sub-court, Salem. The petitioner had moved an application in I.A.No.55

of 2010 for annulling the adjudication of the revision petitioner as an

insolvent. He would further contend that all the creditors had been fully

settled by the petitioner and unfortunately, the liquidator had not brought

it to the notice of the Court. Further, the Court also dismissed the

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:47:38 pm )

application on a technical ground that the auction purchaser had not been

included by the revision petitioner. He would further contend that

excepting the 10^th creditor, the claims of all other creditors had been fully

settled and satisfied and colluding with his grandson, the auction

purchaser, the 10^th creditor has refused to receive the amounts tendered,

in full and final settlement.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also invite

my attention to the memo filed by the petitioner seeking permission to

deposit the amounts due and payable to the 10^th creditor. The learned

counsel for the petitioner would therefore state that when the petitioner

had settled the claims of all the creditors, he was entitled to an order,

annulling his adjudication as an insolvent. He would further contend that

the provisions of Order XXI Rule 95 of CPC were not complied with at the

time of taking possession, after the auction purchaser purchased the

subject property and that the signature of the petitioner was not obtained

at the time of delivery.

5.Lastly, Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that the execution petition ought to have been filed by the

petitioner within one year, but admittedly, the E.P was not filed within the

statutory period of limitation. He would therefore pray for the matter

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:47:38 pm )

being remitted to enable the revision petitioner to establish payment and

full satisfaction of claims of all creditors.

6.Per contra, Mr.K.Myilsamy, the leaned counsel appearing for the

contesting 13^th respondent would contend that the E.P was filed way back

in the year 1989 and the petitioner was declared as an insolvent as early as

on 28.03.1989.The auction was held on 05.02.2009 and the 13^th

respondent purchased the property at the auction in 2010. He would

further contend that the documents that are filed along with the typeset of

papers contain copies of alleged receipts from certain creditors and they

have all been created for the purpose of filing of the present r