CRP(NPD)No.1125 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

:

15.12.2020

PRONOUNCED ON :

22.01.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

CRP(NPD)No.1125 of 2016

CMP.No.6170 of 2016

(Through Video Conferencing)

1. P.Veeramani

2. P.Anbu

3. V.Manimaran

4. R.Ramesh

5. S.Sekar

6. M.Sanjeevi

7. M.Manjini

8. S.Ranganatan

Petitioners

Vs

Jayapriya Chit Funds P Limited

by its Foreman R.Anbazhagan

Neiveli

Respondent

Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 115 of the

Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated, 28.1.2016 made in

EP.No.107 of 2013 in AR.No.401 of 2012 by the i Additional Subordinate

Judge, Cuddalore.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.R.Gururaj

For Respondent

:

Mr.C.A.Anburaja

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the order dated,

28.1.2016, made in EP.No.107 of 2013 in AR.No.401 of 2012 by the I

Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

1/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP(NPD)No.1125 of 2016

2. The facts of the case are that the case has arisen out of a chit fund

transaction between the Petitioners and the Respondent Firm and that since

Petitioners failed to pay the chit fund amounts, the Respondent herein has

initiated recovery proceedings by way of arbitration and obtained an

arbitration award in AR.No.401 of 2012 on 09.07.2012 and pursuant to the

same, the Respondent has initiated execution proceedings in EP.No.107 of

2013. By a docket order dated, 28.1.2016 the Court below has ordered for

attachment of salary of the Petitioners. As against the same, this Civil

Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the court below

erred in passing a docket order, attaching the salary of the Petitioners,

without obtaining salary certificates of the Petitioners and the counter filed

by them was not considered. The learned counsel has relied on 1995 1 LW

141 (Janaki Vs. Annapoorani) and 1982 95 LW 708 (P.Thangavelu Vs.

R.Dhanalakshmi Ammal).

4. The learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that having received

the chit prize amounts and having executed promissory notes for the same,

the Petitioners are liable to pay the pending chit amounts and without

exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal, this Civil Revision Petition has

been filed and hence, it is not maintainable.

5. This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their

submissions and also carefully perused the materials placed on record.

6. In this case, the Respondent has initiated arbitration proceedings in

2/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP(NPD)No.1125 of 2016

AR.No.401 of 2012 before the Joint Registrar of Chit, against the Petitioners

for not having paid the pending chit amounts, after receiving the chit prize

amount. On 09.07.2012, an arbitration award passed against the Petitioners.

In the execution proceedings in EP.No.107 of 2013, the impugned docket

order, attaching the salary of the Petitioners, has been passed by the court

below.

7. It is seen from the records that admittedly, the Petitioners have received the

chit prize amounts and executed promissory notes for the same. In the

counter filed by the Petitioners in the executions proceedings, they have

clearly admitted their liability in paragraph 7 as under:-

“7/ nkw;go fl;rpfs; vg;go ,Ug;gpDk; ,e;j vjph;kDjhuh;

jhd; epahag;go brYj;jntz;oa bjhifia gpujpkhjk;

U:/2.000-?k; tPjk; brYj;j jahuhf cs;shh;/”

After having admitted so, certain payments have also been made by the

Petitioners. Only when the Petitioner have failed to make payments,

attachment was ordered by the impugned order. It is settled principle of law

that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree.

8. Further, though there are several contentions made by the learned counsel

for the Petitioners, since there is