Madras High Court
N.Meenatchi Sundaram vs Shriram City Union Finance ... on 30 October, 2023
CRP.(MD).Nos.2095 and 2097 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:30.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.(MD).Nos.2095 and 2097 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.10899 and 10901 of 2019
CRP.(MD).No.2095 of 2019:
N.Meenatchi Sundaram ...Petitioner
Vs.
Shriram City Union Finance Limited,
No.123, Angappa Naicker Street,
Chennai District,
Represented through its Branch Manager,
Theni. ...Respondent
PRAYER: This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the impugned order passed in EA No.04 of 2019 dated
12.03.2019 in EP No.87 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District and
Sessions Court (FTC), Theni in ACP No.118 of 2013 dated 25.10.2014 on
the file of Arbitrator.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(MD).Nos.2095 and 2097 of 2019
CRP.(MD).No.2097 of 2019:
M.Satheeswaran ...Petitioner
Vs.
Shriram City Union Finance Limited,
No.123, Angappa Naicker Street,
Chennai District,
Represented through its Branch Manager,
Theni. ...Respondent
PRAYER: This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the impugned order of return passed in unnumbered EA
No. of 2019 dated 14.03.2019 in EP No.87 of 2017 on the file of the
Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Theni in ACP No.118 of
2013 dated 25.10.2014 on the file of the Arbitrator.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.P.Rajan
For Respondent : Mr.J.Barathan
(In Both Petitions)
COMMON ORDER
Both these Civil Revision Petitions are at the instance of the
respondent in the execution proceedings.
2. The respondent in both these petitions is the Bank which
has moved applications to attach the salary of the revision petitioners. The
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(MD).Nos.2095 and 2097 of 2019
applications to attach the salary came to be allowed in the Executing Court
and the pro-order was also subsequently served on the Garnishee, the
fourth respondent / the employer of the revision petitioners. At that stage,
the revision petitioners moved applications for setting aside and recall the
orders passed by the Executing Court. However, the Executing Court has
dismissed the said applications filed by the revision petitioners solely on
the ground that the pro-order had already been served on the Garnishee,
namely, the fourth respondent and therefore, the petition was not
maintainable.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
revision petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Bank.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners
would bring to the notice of this Court the case of V.Ramalingam Vs.
Thayamuthammal reported in (1998) 3 MLJ 241, wherein, in very similar
circumstances, this Court has held that an application to set aside the
exparte order was maintainable and the judgment-debtor ought to be given
an opportunity to put forth his objections to the attachment of the salary.
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(MD).Nos.2095 and 2097 of 2019
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank
would submit that the applications filed by the revision petitioners by way
of execution applications were clearly barred by limitation and therefore,
on that score, both the applications are liable to be dismissed.
Unfortunately, the Executing Court has not gone into this aspect as to
whether the applications were barred by law and by limitation. The only
ground on which the applications have been dismissed is that the pro-order
was already served on the Garnishee. Unfortunately, this is not a valid
ground to hold that an application seeking for raising an order of
attachment of salary is not maintainable. Despite the pro-order being
served on the Garnishee, it is always open to the judgment-debtor to move
an application to recall the order attaching his / her salary. On this score,
the order of the Executing Court is liable to be set aside, however, leaving
it open to the respondent to canvass the point of limitation before the
Executing Court, at the time of enquiry.
6. Resultantly, C.R.P.(MD).No.2095 of 2019 is allowed and
the Executing Court shall decide E.A.No.04 of 2019 after hearing the
revision petitioner as well the respondent Bank, in accordance with law
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(MD).Nos.2095 and 2097 of 2019
and in any event, pass final orders within a period of four (4) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.R.P.(MD).No.2097 of 2019 is
allowed and the order passed by the Executing Court is set aside and the
Executing Court is directed to number the petition in E.A.SR.No.1066 of
2019 after hearing the revision petitioner as well as the respondent Bank,
the Executing Court shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law
within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
30.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
tsg
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Theni.
2.The Record Keeper,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(MD).Nos.2095 and 2097 of 2019
P.B.BALAJI,J.
tsg
CRP.(MD).Nos.2095 and 2097 of 2019
30.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
