Madras High Court
Fr.A.Adaikalasamy vs K.K.Subramanian on 13 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP (NPD) NO. 2320 of 2015
Holy Redeemers Finance Corporation
Rep. by its Partners
1. Fr.A.Adaikalasamy
2. Fr.A.S.Anthonisamy
3. Fr.A.Dhanam
All are represented by their
Power of Attorney Agent
Alphonse Ligouri
S/o. Late Irudhayaraj
No.3, Dumas Street,
Puducherry.
Petitioner/3rd Party/Petitioner
Vs
1. K.K.Subramanian
S/o.Krishnasamy Gounder
No.10, Nainiyappa Pillai Street,
Puducherry.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm )
2. S.Palanivelu, K.K.Subramanian
No.10, Nainiyappa Pillai Street,
Puducherry.
3. Union of India
Rep. by its Chief Secretary
Government of Pondicherry,
Puducherry.
4. Santhi
D/o. Late K.K.Subramanian
Residing at No.10, Nainiyappa Pillai
Street, Puducherry.
5. S.Carounagarane
D/o. Late K.K.Subramanian
Residing at No.10, Nainiyappa Pillai
Street, Puducherry.
6. S.Sammandam
D/o. Late K.K.Subramanian
Residing at No.10, Nainiyappa Pillai
Street, Puducherry.
7. S.Arouna
D/o. Late K.K.Subramanian
Residing at No.10, Nainiyappa Pillai
Street, Puducherry.
Respondent-1 died. Respondent-2 (who is
already on record) and respondents 4 to 7 are
brought on record as LRS of the deceased R-1
viz., K.K.Subramanian vide Court order dated
12.06.2025 made in CMP.No. 19031 of 2017 in
CRP No. 2320 of 2015 by VLNJ. (recorded)
... Respondents
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm )
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC,
against the fair and decreetal order of the learned III Additional District
Judge, Puducherry dated 10.02.2015 made in I.A.No. 163 of 2011 in
L.A.O.P.No. 31 of 2008.
***
For Petitioner(s): M/s. G.Sumithra
For Respondent(s): No appearance
ORDER
Heard M/s. G.Sumithra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a decree holder, who sought execution of a decree and filed E.P.No. 257 of 1998. In the said Execution Petition, the petitioner attached the award amount in LAOP proceedings where the amounts were payable to the Judgment Debtor. The petitioner has also filed an application in I.A.No. 163 of 2011 in the LAOP proceedings for withdrawing the amounts due and payable under the decree in favour of the revision petitioner. However, the said application came to be dismissed on the ground that the Execution Petition itself had been dismissed and the petitioner was not entitled to seek for withdrawal. Subsequently, the application filed by the petitioner in E.A.No. 434 of 2010 seeking 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm ) permission to withdraw the attached sum of Rs.7,93,210.40 has also been dismissed by the Executing Court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner now challenges the dismissal of I.A.No. 163 of 2011.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the application was erroneously dismissed and the petitioner has a valid attachment of the award amount in LAOP proceedings. The Executing Court first of all ought not to have been dismissed the Execution Petition or the application filed by the revision petitioner. The attachment in favour of the petitioner would enure to the benefit of the petitioner and it is entitled to seek withdrawal of the decree amount in the pending LAOP proceedings.
4. The only reason stated by the Executing Court to dismiss I.A.No. 163 of 2011 is that E.P.No. 257 of 1998 was dismissed. That cannot be an impediment for the petitioner to seek permission of the Court for withdrawing the amounts legitimately due to the petitioner under-valid decree.
5. This Court infact called for a report from the III Additional 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm ) District Court, Puducherry, regarding the amounts lying to the credit of LAOP No. 31 of 2008. The report has also been sent by the III Additional District Court, Puducherry to the Registry on 04.07.2025 indicating that a sum of Rs.52,79,291/- is still available as balance in a fixed deposit in the name of the III Additional District Court pertaining to LAOP No. 31 of 2008.
6. The Executing Court ought to have allowed the application for withdrawal of the amount in favour of the petitioner, instead of dismissing the same citing dismissal of E.P.No. 257 of 1998. The only remedy for the petitioner is to seek withdrawal of the amounts lying to the credit of the LAOP proceedings as the order of attachment in favour of the petitioner would survive even the dismissal of Execution Petition No. 257 of 1998. Further, none of the respondents have also come forward to contest this Revision and paper publication has also been effected and the respondents are called and set exparte.
P.B. BALAJI, J.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm ) vsg
8. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the order in I.A.No 163 of 2011 in L.A.O.P.No. 31 of 2008 is set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to seek payment out of the amounts due to the petitioner, under the decree, in accordance with law.
13-10-2025 vsg To III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.
CRP (NPD) NO. 2320 of 2015 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:04 pm )