Madras High Court
Sankarpandi vs Ganesan on 24 April, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.4728 of 2023
Sankarpandi ...Petitioner/Petitioner/
Defendant
Vs.
Ganesan ... Respondent/Respondent/
Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated
20.02.2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in I.A.No.344 of 2017 in O.S.No.
498 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil
For M.P.Banu Prasath
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair
and decreetal order, dated 20.02.2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in
I.A.No.344 of 2017 in O.S.No.498 of 2016 on the file of the Additional
Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023
2. The petitioner is the defendant before the Additional Sub Court,
Dindigul in O.S.No.498 of 2016 filed by the respondent. The respondent
has filed the above suit to recover a sum of Rs.5,84,666/- together with
interest on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. It appears that the petitioner was set ex parte on 24.04.2017. On
the same day, an order also came to be passed for attaching the property
of the petitioner. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.1 of 2019
for sending the signature for examination by an expert after comparison
under Order 26 Rule 10 (a) of C.P.C. I.A.No.1 of 2019. I.A.No.1 of 2019
was dismissed by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul with the following
observations:
8. On perusing the entire case records and the arguments
put forth on both side, this court finds that the Plaintiff has filed
the suit for recovery of amount by saying that the defendant
borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.05.2015 at the residence
of Plaintiff and for the due repayment of principal amount with
interest, the defendant executed suit pronate on 27.5.2015, but
the defendant filed his written statement by denying the receipt
of any amount from the Plaintift and any body and denied the
execution of pronote and specifically stated that the signature
found in the disputed pronote. pronote is not that of the
defendant and on the date of the pronote the petitioenr was at
Jammu and kashmir and not at Dindigul. Therefore this court
finds that before filing of the plaintiff issued legal notice to the
defendant and the same has been received by him and even after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023
receipt of legal notice, he failed to give reply to the legal notice.
Further though the defendant was worked at Jammu and
Kashmir there are possibilities for him to visit to his native
place on leave or long vacation. Further the plaintiff is having
night to adduce Oral and documentary evidence to prove his
case and at that time, the defendant can cross examine the
plaintiff side witnesses to disprove the case of the Plaintiff and
thereafter the defendant is having lot of chances to prove that on
the date of alleged pronote, he was not in Dindigul and only
after that he is entitled to send the document for comparison of
his signature, hence this Parition filed at this stage is
premature. Further by giving liberty to rhe Petitioner/
Defendant to file this kind of Petition with admitted document at
the appropriate time, this petition can be dismissed as
premature.
9.In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.
4. The petitioner has secured an interim order against the aforesaid
order and further stayed the proceedings in O.S.No.498 of 2016 filed by
the respondent by an order, dated 25.04.2022. Meanwhile, the petitioner
had also filed I.A.No.344 of 2017 to raise the order of attachment. The
application filed for raising the judgment was dismissed for non-
prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 to condone
the delay of 973 days in restoring the application filed for raising the
order of attachment. The Additional Sub Court, Dindigul dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner with the following observations:
"9. ...,jdpilNa ,.k.vz;.344--2017 27.09.2019
mjhtJ ,.k.vz;.343/2017 kD js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;l
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023
gpd;dpl;L tprhuizf;F gyKiw xj;jp itf;fg;gl;l
epiyapy; ,e;j kDjhuh; Nkw;gb kDtpid njhlh;e;J
elj;j Kd;tiutpy;iy vd;gjhy; ,Wjpahf 27.09.2019
md;W jhd; js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gb js;Sgb
nra;ag;gl;l gpd;Gk; mry; tof;fpy; ,.k.vz;.1/2019
mjhtJ chpikapay; eilKiw rl;lk; fl;lis 26 tpjp
10(a)d; fPo; kD jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L njhlh;e;J me;j
kD epYitapy; ,Ue;J 29.11.2021y; js;Sgb
nra;ag;gl;Ltpl;lJ. Mf ,.k.vz;.344/2017 27.09.2019y;
js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;l gpd;dpl;L mry; tof;fpy;
vjph;kDjhuh; njhlh;e;J M[uhfp jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l gy
kDf;fisAk;> mry; tof;fpYk; tprhuizapy; fye;J
nfhz;Ls;shh;. vdNt 27.09.2019 md;W js;Sgb
nra;ag;gl;l rq;fjp kDjhuUf;F njhpatpy;iy vd;W
$Wk; rq;fjp ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jhy;
Vw;Wf;nfhs;sj;jf;fjhf ,y;iy. vdNt kDjhuhpd; kD
chpa fhuzk; nrhy;yg;gltpy;iy
vd;gjhy; ,r;#o;epiyapy; ,k;kD Vw;Wf;nfhs;sj;jf;fjhf
,y;iy vd;Nw ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;T fhz;fpwJ.
10.,Wjpahf> ,k;kD js;Sgb nra;J
cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. nryTj; njhif ,y;iy."
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the impugned order and
the background of the case.
6. The suit is of the year 2016. Earlier, the petitioner was set ex
parte on 24.04.2017, which appears to have been later set aside. Pursuant
to which, the petitioner’s written statement has been taken on record. The
petitioner has also incidentally filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 under Order 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023
Rule 10(a) of C.P.C for getting a report of the expert after comparison.
Since the application was dismissed, the petitioner has also filed
C.R.P(MD)No.666 of 2022 and has secured an interim order.
7. In my view, no useful purpose will be served by raising the
order of attachment as admittedly according to the petitioner, the
property is not proposed to be sold barring a stigma that the property has
been attached. There will be no other prejudice that will be caused to the
petitioner. Consequently, no interference is warranted at this stage.
8. The present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with the
above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
24.04.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sn
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Dindigul
2.The Section Officer
Vernacular Section,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
C.SARAVANAN,J.
SN
C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023
24.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
