Madras High Court
Prema vs M.V.Rajarathinam & Sons on 10 April, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.1112 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1112 of 2018
1. Prema
2. Siluvai ... Petitioners/Petitioners/
Decree Holders/Claimants
-vs-
M.V.Rajarathinam & Sons
Jeera Merchants,
Door No.69 of Peraira Street,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District. ... Respondents/Respondents
Judgment Debtor/2nd Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 06.12.2017 in E.P.No.125
of 2013 in M.C.O.P.No.209 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Tuticorin.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan
For Respondent : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.1112 of 2018
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the claimants in
M.C.O.P.No.209 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin,
challenging the dismissal of the execution proceedings.
2. The revision petitioners herein as claimants filed M.C.O.P.No.209 of
2009, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court,
Tuticorin, claiming compensation as against the respondent in the revision
petition.
3. The respondent herein had filed a counter disputing his liability and
quantum. On 28.11.2012, an award was passed by the Tribunal as against the
respondent herein for a sum of Rs.3,36,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%
p.a.
4. The claimants have filed E.P.No.125 of 2013 as against the second
respondent in the claim petition. For the first time, the second respondent had
taken a stand in the counter that the second respondent firm was dissolved in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.1112 of 2018
the year 2006 itself. Therefore, the present Execution Petition filed as against
the dissolved firm is not maintainable. The said ground was accepted by the
Tribunal and the Execution Petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed.
Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners, one Kanagavel had filed the counter in M.C.O.P.No.209 of 2009
admitting himself to be a partner of the firm. He also examined himself as
R.W.1. The same person has now filed a counter contending that the firm has
been dissolved even before filing the claim petition. Therefore, it is clear that
the claimants would be entitled to proceed against any of the parties who had
admitted the partnership of the alleged firm which has been dissolved as
contemplated under Order 21 Rule 50 of C.P.C. Hence, he prayed for
allowing this revision petition.
6. Though notice was sent to the respondent and the same has been
returned with an endorsement as “refused” and the name was also printed in
the cause list, none appeared on behalf of them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.1112 of 2018
7. The second respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
had filed their counter in the main claim petition in the year 2009 without
disclosing the fact that the firm has been dissolved in the year 2006 itself.
Even while being examined as R.W.1, the partner of the firm has not
disclosed about the dissolution of the firm. For the first time, such a stand has
been taken in the counter filed in the execution proceedings. It could also be
seen that the counter in the Execution Petition has also been filed by the said
Kanagavel, who was examined as R.W.1 in the main claim petition.
Therefore, it is clear that the claim petitioners would be entitled to invoke
Order 21 Rule 50 of C.P.C. The Tribunal ought not to have rejected the
execution proceedings in entirety without permitting the claimants to proceed
as against the individual partners, if they are so aggrieved.
8. In view of the above said facts, the order impugned in the Revision
Petition is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tuticorin, so as to enable
the claimants to proceed against Mr. Kanagavel, in his individual capacity
who admitted himself as the partner of the second respondent firm in the
Motor Accident Claim Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.1112 of 2018
9. With the above said observation, this Civil Revision Petition stands
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Principal District Court,
Tuticorin.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.1112 of 2018
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1112 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.1112 of 2018
10.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
