Madras High Court
R.Rajendiran vs Prabhu Chit Funds (P) Ltd on 28 September, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1986 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1986 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.10398 of 2016
R.Rajendiran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Prabhu Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,
No.834, Cuddalore Road,
Panruti,
Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
2.J.Devanathan
3.A.S.Soundararajan @ Karthick .. Respondents
(R2 and R3 are not necessary parties to the petition)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
15.10.2015, made in E.P.No.27 of 1998 in A.R.No.125 of 1998, on the
file of the Sub Court, Panruti.
___
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1986 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gururaj
For Respondents : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar (For R1)
for M/s.D.Ravichander
Notice dispensed with
(For R2 & R3)
ORDER
(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and
decreetal order dated 15.10.2015, made in E.P.No.27 of 1998 in
A.R.No.125 of 1998, on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti.
2.The petitioner is 1st respondent in E.P.No.27 of 1998 in
A.R.No.125 of 1998, on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti. He was a
member of one of the Chit Transaction run by the 1st respondent. In
respect of said chit transaction, the petitioner defaulted in payment of
instalments. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings in Arbitration Case,
A.R.No.125 of 1998. The Deputy Registrar of Chits, Cuddalore, passed
an award dated 30.06.1998, granting decree, directing the petitioner to
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1986 of 2016
pay the amount of Rs.53,000/- and the balance defaulted amounts
together with interest and costs to the 1st respondent. The petitioner did
not initiate any further proceedings, challenging the said award and the
said award has become final. The 1st respondent filed E.P.No.27 of 1998
on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti, seeking for a direction to the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.74,453.75/-, failing which to arrest and
detain the petitioner in civil prison. The petitioner filed counter statement
on 30.06.1999 and stated that the amount and interest claimed are
excessive. The cost claimed is not correct and the petitioner has no
means to pay the said amount. Before the learned Judge, the 1st
respondent examined one Balan as P.W.1 and marked the Income Tax
Returns for the year 1999-2000, filed by the petitioner herein, as Ex.P1.
The petitioner examined himself as R.W.1, examined one Pazhamalai,
Income Tax Officer as R.W.2 and marked Turn Over Report of the Sales
Tax department dated 02.02.2007, as Ex.X1. The learned Judge,
considering the entire materials, including both the oral and documentary
evidence, allowed E.P.No.27 of 1998, ordering arrest of the petitioner by
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1986 of 2016
04.11.2015.
3.Against the order dated 15.10.2015, made in E.P.No.27 of 1998
in A.R.No.125 of 1998, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil
Revision Petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the
grounds raised in the Civil Revision Petition and relying on the
judgments reported in 1995 (1) LW 141 [Annapoorni V.Janaki], 98 LW
25 (SC) [M/s.Variety Emporium Vs. V.R.M.Mohd. Ibrahim Naina], AIR
1975 SC 1409 [Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor and General
Traders], AIR 1981 SC 1113 [M.M.Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma
and others], AIR 1990 SC 717 [Bhavnagar Municipality Vs. Union of
India and another] and 1996 (1) LW 418 [The Bishop in Office of CSI
Vellore Diocese, Rt. Rev. RT.Baskaran and others Vs. Jeyakaran Joseph
and others], submitted that subsequent events have to be taken into
consideration and prayed for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1986 of 2016
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
the 1st respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
6.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the 1st respondent Chit Company has become defunct and
the Managing Director of the 1st respondent is dead, is not supported by
any documents. The petitioner has not filed any document before the
Execution Court to prove the said contention. Further, the 1st respondent
is a Chit Fund Company and it can be represented by any authorised
representative. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that Arbitrator has not followed the legal procedure, the amount and
interest claimed are excessive and the cost awarded is not correct cannot
be raised in the E.P., as he has not challenged the award dated 30.06.1998
made in Arbitration Case, A.R.No.125 of 1998. The learned Judge has
considered the documents filed by the 1st respondent to show that the
petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and giving
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1986 of 2016
valid reason, allowed E.P.No.27 of 1998, ordering arrest. The petitioner
has not pointed out any error or irregularity in the impugned order. The
judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
For the above reason, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.09.2021
Index :: Yes/No
gsa
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Panruti.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1986 of 2016
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
gsa
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1986 of 2016
28.09.2021
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
