BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 12.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD) No.19222 of 2025

1. S.Balasubramanian

2. K.Anbu ... Petitioners Vs Jayapriya Chit Funds P Ltd.,, Kumbakonam, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Having Office at No.71/1, John Selvaraj Nagar, Swathi Lab (Opp.), Bus Stand Near, Kumbakonam. ... Respondent PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 made in E.P.No.223/2024 in AR.No.75/2022 on the file of Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and set aside the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan For Respondent : Mr.R.Devaraj Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Rajesh Babu

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.11.2025 made in E.P.No.223/2024 in AR.No.75/2022 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur.

2.The respondent filed an Arbitration Petition as against the petitioners herein before the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Kumbakonam and a decree was passed on 06.03.2023. Since the petitioners/judgment debtors have not repaid the decree amount, the respondent/decree holder has filed an application for execution of the decree under Order XXI Rule 11(2) of CPC to attach the monthly salary of the second Petitioner. The same was allowed on 20.11.2025. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the time of hearing the main arbitration proceedings, the petitioners were not served with proper notice consequently, an ex-parte award has been passed. He further submitted that in the EP proceedings, the petitioners have filed detailed objections to the effect that the loan was secured by mortgage, evidenced by registered MOD dated 17.10.2019 and therefore, in case of debts secured by mortgage, there cannot be enforcement of personal liability before ever exhausting the remedy of enforcing the security and the personal liability will arise only in case of shortfall of the mortgage security to meet the decretal liability. The mortgage security is much more valuable than the decretal liability and in order to arm-twist the petitioners, the execution petition has been filed by the respondent seeking attachment of 2^nd petitioner's salary with ulterior motive, where the Executing Court has not taken into account the said objections.

4.It is further submitted that the total outstanding amount including interest comes to a sum of Rs.58,00,000/- and the attachment could be effected only for 24 months. Without considering all those aspects, the trial Court passed the impugned order, which warrants interference of this Court. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no impediment for attachment of salary as against the second petitioner, who is the guarantor. By relying upon Order XXI Rule 42 of CPC, he submitted that there is no statutory bar in attaching the salary of the second petitioner and for ready reference, the same is extracted below:-

8.Attachment of salary or allowances of servant of the Government or railway company or local authority.

(1) Where the property to be attached is the salary or allowances of a servant of the Government or of a servant of a railway company or local authority [or of a servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)] the Court, whether the judgment-debtor or the disbursing officer is or is not within the local limits of the Court’s jurisdiction, may order that the amount shall, subject to the provisions of section 60, be withheld from such salary or allowances either in one payment or by monthly instalments as the Court may direct; and, upon notice of the order to such office