D.Haridas vs Suseela
2023 Latest Caselaw 7750 Mad

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 06.07.2023

                                                    CORAM

                                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.
                                             LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                           C.R.P.(NPD).No.3487 of 2014

                        D.Haridas                                             ... Petitioner

                                                        Vs

                        1.Suseela
                        2.Sooryapraba
                        3.Sathish
                        4.Malarvizhi
                        5.Jagadeeswari
                        6.Dhanaprabhu
                        7.Alagesan
                        8.Pachala Devi
                        9.Vanaja                                          ... Respondents

                        PRAYER:-Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the
                        Code of Civil Procedure to under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                        India to set aside the order in E.P.No.201 of 2013 in O.S.No.85 of
                        2010, dated 17.06.2014 passed by the learned Principal
                        Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.



                        1/4



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                        For Petitioner    : Mr.R.Vijayaraghaven
                                        For Respondent     : No appearance
                                                         ORDER

The plaintiff obtained a decree for partition and

maintenance. The said suit was decreed with costs. Since, costs

was not deposited, E.P has been filed for recovery costs of

Rs.24,419/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred and

Ninteen only). Since, the costs was not paid, the learned judge had

ordered arrest. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the

order is extracted hereunder:-

"17.6.14 Enq.

Pet. arg hd. R Arg. hd. No appeal. No Stay No Vehement objection. Hence arrest by 31.7.14 time 3 days."

2.The decree holder is entitled to execute the decree and

unless and until the judgment debtor produces an order of stay,

the Executing Court is duty bound to execute the decree as it

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

3.Learned counsel would submit that 2 separate E.Ps. need

not have been filed. It could have been agitated in one E.P. itself.

The decree holder is not executing the same portion of the decree.

In the first E.P., she is executing that portion of the decree where

she has been found entitled to arrears of maintenance and in

default, property had been charged. The present E.P. is for costs.

Cost E.P. is in nature of money and charge E.P. could end in sale

of the property. The Civil Revision Petitioner/ judgment debtor

had not obtained a stay in the Appellate Court and hence, it was

put into execution. There cannot be any doubt that the order of the

trial Court in ordering arrest is right. Therefore, the Civil Revision

is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

06.07.2023 gba Index: Yes/ No Speaking order: Yes/ No Neutral Citations: Yes/ No To

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

Gba

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3487 of 2014

06.07.2023

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