The Special Officer vs Radhabai Amma (Died)
2022 Latest Caselaw 6387 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6387 Mad
Judgement Date : 29 March, 2022

Madras High Court

The Special Officer vs Radhabai Amma (Died) on 29 March, 2022

                                                              C.R.P(MD).Nos.1718 of 2015 and 2741 of 2014


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED : 29.03.2022

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. ANANTHI

                                   C.R.P(MD).Nos.1718 of 2015 and 2741 of 2014 and
                                               MP(MD).No.1 of 2014


                    The Special Officer,
                    representing Weavers Cooperative Society,
                    TNH.34, Kalladi,
                    Kalladi Post, Poottetti Desom,
                    Paloor Village,
                    Vilavancode, Taluk,
                    Kanyakumari District.                     : Petitioner in both CRPs

                                                     Vs.


                    1. Radhabai amma (died)
                    2.K.R. Sudhakar
                    3.K.R. Sureshkumar
                    4.K.Sudharsan Kumar
                    5.K.Sudheesh Kumar
                    (R2 to R5 are impleaded vide Court order
                    dated 16.03.2022)                              : Respondents in

CRP(MD).No.2714/14

1.General Manager, District General Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

1. Radhabai amma (died)

2.K.R. Sudhakar

3.K.R. Sureshkumar

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD).Nos.1718 of 2015 and 2741 of 2014

4.K.Sudharsan Kumar

5.K.Sudheesh Kumar (R2 to R5 are impleaded vide Court order dated 16.03.2022) : Respondents in

Common Prayer: - Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 CPC to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2014 passed in E.A.Nos.203 of 2014 and 402 of 2011 in E.P.No.13 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

For petitioner in both CRPs : Ms. J. Anandhavalli For R3 to R6 in CRP(MD).No.1718 of 2015 For respondents in CRP(MD).No.2741 of 2014 : Mr. M.P. Senthil

COMMON ORDER

CRP(MD).No.1718 of 2015 is filed to set aside the order,

dated 29.10.2014 passed in E.A.No.402 of 2011 in E.P.No.13 of 2006 in

O.S.No.3 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,

Kuzhithurai, which was filed by the Garnishee.

2. CRP(MD).No.2714 of 2014 filed by the revision petitioner

to set aside the order, dated 29.10.2014 passed in E.A.No.203 of 2014 in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD).Nos.1718 of 2015 and 2741 of 2014

E.P.No.13 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District

Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and

perused the materials available on record.

3. The revision petitioner / decree holder filed E.A.No.203 of

2014 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to amend the execution

petition. The suit is for recovery of money and the same was decreed in

the year 1997. The Execution Petition was filed to execute the decree in

E.P.No.13 of 2006.

4. The Garnishee filed one E.A.No.402 of 2011 to amend the

decree instead of Rs.1,48,650/- as Rs.60,000/-, because the Garnishee is

having only Rs.60,000/- of the Judgment debtor and the said Execution

Application was partly allowed and the Garnishee was directed to pay

a sum of Rs.60,000/- by way of cheque to the EP account. So, for the

remaining amount the petitioner / decree holder has to amend the

Execution Petition and there must be a attachment of the property of the

Judgment debtor. There is no bar to amend the execution petition for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD).Nos.1718 of 2015 and 2741 of 2014

realizing the balance of decree amount as per the Judgment of this Court

reported in 2015(3) MWN (Civil) 88 (Jayaraj Vs. Chockalingam

Chettiar), wherein at para No.17 it has been held as follows:

“17. The Decree-holder is given an option to seek anyone of the modes for execution. Merely because the Decree-holder has availed one particular mode of execution, it cannot be said that he is disentitled, at a later point of time, to amend the Execution Petition, seeking another mode of recovery.

Amendment of Execution Petition is, therefore, permissible, by invoking the provisions of Sections 151 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”

5. So, for the balance decree amount, the petitioner has to

amend the Execution Petition for attachment of the property of the

Judgment debtor. The EP proceeding continues till the realization. The

decree is of the year 1997 and the Execution Petition was filed in the year

2006. Since the Execution Petition was filed within the time limit of 12

years there is no limitation to realize the amount,

6. Hence, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed by

confirming the order, dated 29.10.2014 passed in E.A.Nos.203 of 2014

and 402 of 2011 in E.P.No.13 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 1996 on the file of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD).Nos.1718 of 2015 and 2741 of 2014