Madras High Court
M/S.Rajshree Laminates Ltd vs M/S.Industrial Venture Capital ... on 23 November, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2483 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.2483 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.18737 of 2021
1.M/s.Rajshree Laminates Ltd.
Rep. by its Director
J.Prakash Mehta
159, Ponnurangam Road (East)
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002.
2.Prakash J Mehta
3.Dinesh Mehta .. Petitioners
Vs.
M/s.Industrial Venture Capital Limited
Rep by its Law Officer
A.Hema Jothi
112, Vairama, Thyagaraya Road
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 18.08.2021 in
E.P.No.44 of 2016 in C.S.No.341 of 2001 passed by the learned V
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2483 of 2021
Additional District Judge, Coimbatore and quash the same as illegal and
arbitrary.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.R.Kalyani
******
ORDER
Challenge in this Revision is to the order of the Executing Court
dismissing the application seeking leave to file additional counter statement
in the execution petition.
2. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground of
delay and on the ground that this Court had already directed the execution
proceedings to be disposed of within a time frame. The execution Court
also saw this application as an attempt to delay the execution proceedings.
3. Mr.S.R.Kalyani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the monies due under the decree have been paid
and the same has been recognised in the criminal appeal that arose out of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2483 of 2021
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and all
that the petitioner wanted to place before the Court was factum of such
payment by way of additional counter statement.
4. I am afraid that such a contention is not open to the judgment
debtor/ the petitioner. Order XXI Rule 2 Sub-Rule (3) prohibits the
execution Court from recognising payments that have not been certified
under Sub-Rule (2) or Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order XXI of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
5. Admittedly the payment that is claimed to have been made has not
been certified as required under Sub-Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order
XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, even if the counter
statement is to be accepted, the Court cannot look into that or recognise the
payment.
6. Hence, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2483 of 2021
learned trial Judge. The Revision therefore fails and it is accordingly
dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
23.11.2021
dsa
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Speaking order
To
The V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2483 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2483 of 2021
23.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
