BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 23/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR CMP(MD).No.634 of 2026 Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs Sukumaran Respondent PRAYER :-

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 09.10.2025 made in E.A. No. 8 of 2025 in E.P. No. 18 of 2023 in O.S.No. 146 of 2018 on the file of the Honourable Additional District Court, Kuzhithurai.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandra Sudan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.R. Sreenivasan ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 09.10.2025 made in E.A. No. 8 of 2025 in E.P. No. 18 of 2023 in O.S. No. 146 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kuzhithurai.

2. Originally, the suit in O.S. No. 146 of 2018 was filed by the respondent for recovery of money and for declaration. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent by judgment and decree dated 10.08.2019. As per the decree, the revision petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- within a period of three months together with interest at the rate of 36% per annum.

3. Since the revision petitioner failed to comply with the decree, the respondent initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 18 of 2023. During the course of execution, the revision petitioner filed E.A. No. 8 of

2025 challenging the interest portion of the decree.

4. The executing Court, upon consideration, held that if the revision petitioner was aggrieved by the rate of interest awarded in the decree, the proper remedy was to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree. It was further held that the executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree and cannot modify or alter the terms of the decree. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (3) MLJ 713 in Company Application Nos. 749 to 752 of 2003 in the case of K. Madhu and another Vs. Ugar Finance India Ltd., and others, and contended that the transaction could be reopened on the ground that the rate of interest at 36% is excessive and unconscionable.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the executing Court cannot go into the merits of the decree or alter its terms, including the rate of interest. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2012 (2) CTC 198 in the case of Narendra Kumar Vs. Sumathi and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 Supreme (SC) 1854 in the case of Deepa Bhargava and another Vs. Mahesh Bhargava and others. The relevant paragraph No.14 (6) of the Judgment rported in 2012 (2) CTC 198 in the case of Narendra Kumar Vs. Sumathi is extracted hereunder:

“14. An identical question as in the case on hand, arose before the Bombay Court in Joaquim Joao Fernandes vs. Nazario Pinto [2006 AIHC 2116 (Bombay) and the Bombay High Court after taking note of the various decisions on the point including the decisions of this Court held that the Executing Court could not have reduced the interest. At this stage, it would be useful to refer the relevant paragraph of the said decision -

6) The power to decide about the executability of the decree cannot and does not include the power to alter the decree merely because the Executing Court has different opinion about the right of the parties regarding the subject-matter in relation to which the decree is sought to be executed. While dealing with the issue relating to the executability of the decree, the Executing Court cannot re- adjudicate upon the rights of the parties to obtain the decree already passed.

7. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree. The executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it stands and cannot re-adjudica