Madras High Court
Deivathal vs Sree Chitral Mills on 26 February, 2021
Tr CMP No. 558 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Tr.C.M.P.No. 558 of 2019
Deivathal ..Petitioner
Vs
1.Sree Chitral Mills,
Rep. By its Partner S.Kumar,
11, Rajarav Street,
Tirupur.
2.A.Natarajan
3.N.K.Sengalippan
4.N.Sangameshwaran
5.M/s.Pentool Steels Products Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. By its Manager,
No.17, 18 Ranga Konar Street,
Coimbatore – 641 009. ..Respondents
Petition filed under Section 24 of CPC to transfer the
proceedings pending in E.P.No. 185 of 2008 in O.S.No. 568 of 1992
on the file of I Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore to the file of
Principal Sub Court, Tirupur to try along with the suit in O.S.No. 439
of 2016.
For Petitioner : Ms.N.Nathami
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Viswanathan
for Mr.S.Sivakumar for R1
No appearance for R4
R2 – died (steps due)
R3 and R5 no such addressee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 6
Tr CMP No. 558 of 2019
ORDER
The transfer petition under Section 24 of the CPC is filed to
transfer the E.P.No. 185 of 2008 in O.S.No. 568 of 1992 on the file
of the I Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore to the Sub-Court,
Tiruppur to be tried along with O.S.No. 439 of 2016.
2. The issues involved in the suit are unnecessary as far as
the present transfer petition is concerned. The only question arises
is whether the execution proceedings now pending before the I
Additional Sub-court, Coimbatore may be transferred to the Court at
Tiruppur to be tried along with the subsequent suit in O.S.No. 439
of 2016.
3. It is an admitted fact that the judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No. 568 of 1992 was confirmed by the First Appellate Court
and in the Second Appeal and thereafter before the Apex Court of
India. Thus, the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 568 of 1992
became final and the execution proceedings were instituted in
E.P.No. 185 of 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another suit in
O.S.No. 439 of 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr CMP No. 558 of 2019
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended
that the subject-matter is interconnected and the execution
proceedings is to be adjudicated along with the suit in O.S.No. 439
of 2016 and to decide the issues in common.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent objected
the said contention stating that even in case of some link between
the properties and that the parties are one and the same as far as
the execution proceedings are concerned, the judgment and decree
became final in all respects and, therefore, the decree holder cannot
be prevented from pursuing the execution proceedings
independently to realize the decree passed by the trial Court. Such
a right is an absolute right and by instituting another suit, the
petitioner cannot prolong and protract the issues which would
infringe the rights of the decree holder under the provisions of CPC.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that any such
tactical method adopted by the parties to prolong or protract the
civil proceedings can never be encouraged by the Courts. It is not
as if the transfer can be granted in a routine manner. A simple
submission that the parties are one and the same and the suit
properties involved in the execution proceedings as well as in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr CMP No. 558 of 2019
fresh suit are one and the same would not be a ground to grant
transfer of case. The rights of the parties are to be ascertained
independently with reference to the judgment and decree already
confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, the
petitioner is at liberty to pursue the remedy with reference to the
fresh suit instituted in O.S.No.439 of 2016. However, the execution
proceedings filed in E.P.No. 185 of 2008 in O.S.No. 568 of 1992 is
to be decided independently on its own merits. The decree holder at
any circumstances can be prevented from executing the decree and
any other subsequent suit cannot be a bar for filing an independent
execution proceedings. In the present case, the rights of the decree
holder became crystallized and, therefore, the executing court is
directed to proceed with the execution proceedings and dispose of
the same as expeditiously as possible.
With these observations, the transfer civil miscellaneous
petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.
15786 of 2019 is closed.
26.02.2021
Index: Yes
ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr CMP No. 558 of 2019
To
1. The I Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore.
2. The Principal Sub Court, Tirupur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr CMP No. 558 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
(ssm)
Tr.C.M.P.No. 558 of 2019
26.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
