Madras High Court
T.Nagasubramanian vs M.A.Srinivasan ... 1St on 28 June, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.NPD.No.147 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.1305 of 2019
T.Nagasubramanian
... Petitioner / Respondent
/ Respondent-Judgment Debtor-Defendant
Vs
1.M.A.Srinivasan ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
/Petitioner-Decree Holder/Plaintiff
2.Additional District Judge-I ... 2nd respondent / Garnishee
(The 2nd respondent herein given up
in this C.R.P)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC., to set
aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.07.2018 passed in E.A.No.21
of 2018 in E.P.No.128 of 2017 in O.S.No.47 of 2009, on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Kangeyam.
For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Subbiah,
Senior Counsel
For R1 .. Mr.N.Manokaran
For R2 .. Given up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
The Revision Petition has been filed by the Judgment Debtor who
filed E.A.No.21 of 2018 in E.P.No.128 of 2017 in O.S.No.47 of 2009
before the Subordinate Court, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District. The said
E.A.No.21 of 2018 had been filed under Rules 163 and 165 of the Civil
Rules of Practice seeking payment of a sum of Rs.6,44,988/- which was
deposited in E.P.No.128 of 2017 in O.S.No.47 of 2009 pending before
the very same Court namely, the Subordinate Court, Kangeyam, Tiruppur
District and issue a cheque in favour of the counsel for the petitioner
herein. That application came up for consideration and was considered
favourably by an order dated 18.07.2018 which order is the subject
matter of the present Revision Petition.
2.A memo had been filed by the learned counsel for the respondent
stating that the said amount was also verified and thereafter, a cheque in
Cheque No.666159 dated 25.04.2019 had been issued by the learned
Subordinate Judge, for a sum of Rs.6,44,988/- in favour of the 1st
respondent herein and therefore, nothing survives in the Revision
Petition.
3.However, Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the revision petitioner contends otherwise. The learned Senior Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
stated that the interest of the revision petitioner should also be protected
owing to the fact that the said amount was actually an amount deposited
in a parallel Court proceedings in O.S.No.55 of 2009 in the Subordinate
Court, Kangeyam, which was a suit for specific performance and
wherein, the revision petitioner was a defendant, in which Court the said
amount had been deposited. It had been stated that subsequently owing to
various circumstances, the revision petitioner and his wife had filed an
application seeking to declare themselves as insolvents in I.P.No.1 of
2017 which Insolvency Petition was also filed on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Kangeyam.
4.The learned Senior Counsel therefore stated that any amount
due and payable either to the estate of the insolvent namely, the revision
petitioner herein or payable out of the estate of the revision petitioner
herein would all vest with the Official Assignee. It had been therefore
stated that the amount which has now been paid by way of cheque as
aforesaid should actually vest with the Official Assignee.
5.It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that by all
fairness, the learned Official Assignee should have also been heard
before the amount had been paid out to the 1st respondent herein. Even
otherwise, it is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, a very specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
averment had been made by the 1st respondent herein in his affidavit,
wherein, he had stated that in case any judicial order is passed with
respect to the above sum, then he is always ready to re-deposit the said
amount. This undertaking is again recorded before this Court because, it
the grievance of the learned Senior Counsel that the said undertaking was
not recorded by the Court below. The undertaking is extracted below:
“,g;ghy; nkw;go bjhifia bghUj;J ve;j xU !;nl
cj;jpunth. epiwntw;W kDf;fnsh. kwpanyh. ikdh; tpy;y';f
tprhuizfnsh. nky;KiwaPnlh. ,ilf;fhy kDf;fnsh
epYitapy; ,y;iy/ xU ntiy rK:fk; ePjpkd;wk; cj;jut[
gpwg;gpj;jhy; nkw;go bjhifia rK:fk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jpUk;g
blghrpl; bra;a ehd; vg;nghJk; jauhf cs;nsd;/”
6.The cheque had been issued only subject to the said undertaking
and if at all any order is passed with respect to the said amount, I am
confident that the Court would issue notice to the respondent herein, hear
all the parties and then take a considered decision thereafter. To that
extent, the interest of the revision petitioner would be protected. The
interest of the 1st respondent is also naturally protected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7.With the above said observations, the Civil Revision Petition is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
28.06.2021
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
smv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
C.R.P.NPD.No.147 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.1305 of 2019
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
