BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.03.2026 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P(MD)No.2362 of 2025 and CMP(MD) Nos.14156 and 19389 of 2025 and 693 of 2026 R.Jayakumar ... Petitioner vs.

1.M/s.Margadarsi Chits Pvt Ltd Rep by its Foreman TAB Complex

1st Floor No.41, Bharathidasan Salai Contonment Trichy -1.

2.The Director of Central Institute of Brackish Water Aqua Culture, No.75, Santhome High Road Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai - 600 028. ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records related to the impugned order passed by the IV Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli in E.P.No.

79/2019 dated 06-05-2025 set aside the same.

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Ganesan For R1 :Mr.P.Rajagopalan For R2 :No appearance

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order of attachment passed by the learned IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli in E.P.No.79 of 2019 in ARC.No.43 of 2016, dated 06.05.2025.

2.This Court had entertained the Revision and granted an order of stay on 16.12.2025. Soon thereafter, the contesting respondent moved an application in CMP.No.19389 of 2025 to vacate the stay granted. With the vacate stay application having been listed, the main Revision was taken up for disposal.

3.The undisputed facts of the case are that, one, Gunaseelan had joined a 'chit' operated by the first respondent. The chit was for a value of Rs.10,00,000/-. The period of return of the amount, taken under the chit, was 50 months with installment commencing from 29.07.2011.

4.Mr.Gunaseelan was successful in getting a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- in the chit so floated. In order to get the money that had been bid by him, the first respondent called upon him to furnish sureties. Six out of three sureties were to be Government sureties.

5.The Civil Revision Petitioner is working in the second respondent Government Organization. He stood surety for Mr.Gunaseelan. The first respondent made the payment to him. Instead of honouring the payment, Mr.Gunaseelan defaulted. Consequently, the first respondent initiated arbitration proceedings before the Registrar of Chits at Tiruchirapalli. This case was numbered as ARC.No.43 of 2016. This proceeding was not contested. It resulted in an ex parte award on 04.12.2017.

6.The first respondent/decree holder filed an Execution Petition to recover the amount. In pursuance of the said proceedings, the first respondent attached the house property belonging to Mrs.Sujatha, W/o.Gunaseelan, the principal debtor. In addition, Sujatha's salary to an extent of Rs.10,000/- has also been attached. The amounts are being regularly deposited by her employer to the credit of EP. Since the decree amount far exceeds the amount that is being recovered by way of attachment, the first respondent filed EP.No.79 of 2019 to attach the salary of the Civil Revision Petitioner. By an order dated 06.05.2025, the Executing Court ordered the second respondent to attach the salary of the petitioner to an extent of Rs.20,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition.

7.Heard Mr.M.Ganesan for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rajagopalan for the first respondent.

8.It is not in dispute that the original award in ARC.No.43 of 2016 has attained finality. The plea raised by the judgment debtor/Civil Revision Petitioner is that, when the decree holder has already attached the property of Sujatha and is also recovering amounts from her salary, it ought not to attach the salary of the petitioner. In other words, the plea seems to be one of excessive attachment.

9.Mr.P.Rajagopalan urges that as on today an amount of Rs.

1,50,000/- alone has been recovered from Sujatha. He states that the balance is Rs.6,50,000/- together with interest. He states that when the decree has not been challenged, the decree holder has a right to take all such measures that is open to it including the proceeding against each of the judgment debtors a