Madras High Court
Logaraja vs M/S.City Housing Nidhi Limited on 5 August, 2024
C.R.P.(NPD) No.343 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD) No.343 of 2023
AND
C.M.P.No.2874 of 2023
1.Logaraja
2.Gowsalya
3.Prasanth ... Petitioners
Vs
M/s.City Housing Nidhi Limited
Rep. by its General Manager
Authorised person Shanmugam
No.447/23(4) Prabha Complex
Boyampalayam Bus Stop
P.N.Road, Tirupur North Taluk
Tiruppur District 641 602 ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the decree and judgment dated 01.06.2022 passed in Lok Adalath Case
No.346/2022 in O.S.No.432/2021 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Thinesh
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) No.343 of 2023
For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkateswaran
ORDER
The civil revision petitioners challenge the award of the Lok Adalat dated
01.06.2022 passed in Lok Adalat Case No.346/2022 by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
2. O.S.No.432/2021 was presented before the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Tirupur, for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,69,729/- by the plaintiff,
a financial institution, which had sanctioned three loans to the defendants, viz., the
defendants 1 and 2 were sanctioned loan of Rs.7,50,000/- and the 3rd defendant,
a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Each of the defendants had executed a promissory note in
favour of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant Logaraja, who is the 1st revision
petitioner had also mortgaged his property by execution of a mortgage deed on
06.11.2019. The said mortgage was also registered on the file of the District Joint
Registrar-II, Tiruppur. The time granted under the said loans was seven years. As
the plaintiff did not receive the loan amounts regularly, it had no other option but
to institute the aforesaid suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Pending the litigation, the 1st defendant pleads that he had approached
another financial institution by name Minnerva Financial Institution at Erode, in
order to discharge this loan and to take over the loans of the defendants.
Therefore, the defendants agreed for a reference to Lok Adalat.
4. Taking into consideration the ready consent given by the parties, the case
was referred to Lok Adalat by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tirupur. The case was taken on file as Lok Adalat Case No.346/2022.
5. Before the Lok Adalat, which was headed by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge himself, it was agreed between the parties, for the
settlement of the entire dues at Rs.25,00,000/-, of which, Rs.24,00,000/- had to be
paid on 02.06.2022 and the remaining Rs.1,00,000/- within one month. Despite
this specific undertaking, the award was not honoured.
6. It is pertinent to point out that all the three defendants are partners and
they were represented by a single counsel viz., Mr.K.Rajagopal. A perusal of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
award shows that the plaintiff and his counsel have endorsed the signature and so
have, the 1st defendant and the counsel for the defendants. Pleading that Gowsalya
and Prasanth/defendants 2 and 3 did not sign the Lok Adalat Award, this revision
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred.
7. Heard Mr.P.Thinesh, learned counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioners
and Mr.K.Venkateswaran, learned counsel for the respondent.
8. Mr.P.Thinesh would contend that the signature of the other two
defendants have not been taken on the Award and furthermore, the award is an
unreasoned one and hence, liable to be interfered with by this Court.
9. Mr.Venkateswaran would point out that all the three defendants had
engaged a single counsel and they were represented by Logaraja/1st defendant
before the Lok Adalat, who has agreed to repay the debt of Rs.25,00,000/-. Since
the money was to be given at one go, the plaintiff had give up its claim on interest
and had confined itself only to Rs.25,00,000/-. He would point out since it is a
compromise award, the question of Lok Adalat giving detailed reasons, does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
arise and therefore, plead to dismiss this revision.
10. I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides.
11. It is not in dispute that mortgage had been created by Logaraja, who is
the 1st revision petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the other defendants had
executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. All the three defendants had
engaged a single counsel. On account of the fact that the plaintiff was giving them
a concession suffering a haircut in the entire claim, the defendants agreed to the
said award. The parties agreed before the Lok Adalat and endorsed their signature.
Unless and until any vitiating circumstances like fraud, undue influence, coercion
are pleaded, the scope of interference in this revision is limited.
12. Mr.P.Thinesh would concede that Logaraja had signed the Lok Adalat
award along with the counsel, who represented all the defendants. Having agreed
before the Lok Adalat which does not lie in the mouth of the 1st defendant to plead
that the other two defendants did not sign the document, I have to point out here
that the other two defendants also took the benefit of the haircut suffered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiff and it is not as if they preferred the revision separately. All the
defendants together presented this revision, which shows that they are acting in
tandem.
13. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the award dated 01.06.2022 passed by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in Lok Adalat Case No.346/2022.
14. With the above observation, this civil revision petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
15. At this stage, Mr.P.Thinesh would plead that if sufficient time is
granted, then, the 1st defendant, in order to avoid his property from being brought
for sale, would honour the award.
16. Mr.K.Venkateswaran states that the plaintiff being a financial
institution, has to recover the money at the earliest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. Taking into consideration the plea of Mr.P.Thinesh, I am inclined to
grant time till 25.10.2024 to the civil revision petitioners/defendants to discharge
the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. In case, they do not do so, it is open to the respondent/
plaintiff to execute the award in a manner known to law. It is made clear that the
execution proceedings shall not be initiated before 25.10.2024.
Call this revision “for reporting compliance” on 28.10.2024.
05.08.2024
gya
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
The Principal District and Sessions Court
Tiruppur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
gya
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
