Madras High Court
S.Vijayakumar ... Revision vs V.Selvaraj on 21 February, 2025
C.R.P(MD)No.949 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 27.01.2025
Pronounced on : 21.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.949 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5358 of 2021
S.Vijayakumar ... Revision Petitioner / Decree Holder /
Plaintiff
Vs
V.Selvaraj ... Respondent / Judgment Debtor/ Defendant
PRAYER : This Civil Revision petition is filed under Section 115 of
Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 24.02.2020 passed in
E.P.No.132 of 2016 in O.S.No.153 of 2015 on the file of learned Sub
Judge, Karur.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanan
ORDER
This Civil Revision petition is filed to set aside the order dated
24.02.2020 passed in E.P.No.132 of 2016 in O.S.No.153 of 2015 on the
file of learned Sub Judge, Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
2. The suit in O.S.No.153 of 2015 was filed by this revision
petitioner against the respondent herein, seeking the relief of recovery of
Rs.9,51,650/- with subsequent interest and cost. The suit was decreed as
prayed for with cost which was put on execution in E.P.No.132 of 2016.
The property mentioned as second item were put on execution by way of
sale for recovering the amount. During the course of the execution
process, a memo was filed by the revision petitioner to bring both the
items for sale. But the execution Court by order dated 24.02.2020 passed
the following order:
" petitioner side filed memo for the both item for sale
and recorded. On perusal of records petitioners claim
amount is only Rs.10,78,264/- with interest. Petitioner
mentioned the value of the 1st item is only Rs.20 Lakhs,
whereas this Court give upset price for 1st item is only Rs.
15,75,000/-. Hence this Court that no head to bring the both
property for sale. Hence issue fresh sale and proclamation
in result of 1st item only for the upset price of Rs.15,75,000/-
on 15.04.2020. Further hearing call on 20.04.2020. Batta
in a week."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
3. Challenging the order, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred
by the revision petitioner stating that the second item must be brought for
sale. First item may not fetch the desired value.
4. Heard both sides.
5. This Court is not in a position to appreciate the grievance of the
revision petitioner. As mentioned by the execution Court, the upset price
for the first item was fixed at Rs.15,75,000/- and ordered issue of fresh
proclamation. When the first item is sufficient to satisfy the decree
amount what is the necessity for bringing the second item is not known.
The petitioner cannot anticipate or apprehend without any basis that the
first item may not fetch the value to satisfy the decree. Mere
apprehension is not enough.
6. A report was called for from the execution Court as to the stage
of the proceedings. A report is submitted by the letter dated 13.11.2024,
that the sale was originally posted on 02.01.2019, because of the stay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
order passed by this Court, sale was not conducted and order of this
Court was not complied by the respondent. The petition in E.A.No.2 of
2019, filed to reduce the upset price was dismissed. Sale was ordered to
be held on 19.02.2020, there were no bidders. Now it is periodically
adjourned and hearing is posted to 23.09.2024. Record of proceedings of
the execution Court shows that now the first item is proceeded.
7. In this context, learned counsel for the respondent by relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of Sai
Enterprises Vs Bhimreddy Laxmaiah and another, reported in (2007)
13 Supreme Court Cases 576, would submit that the execution Court
cannot order excessive sale. It can confine the sale proceedings only in
respect of the property which will satisfy the decree. According to him,
the order passed by the execution Court does not suffer from any
perversity.
8. For which, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the first item was already mortgaged by the judgment debtor that was not
brought to their notice. So it may not be sufficient to satisfy the decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
but as mentioned above it is merely an apprehension without any basis
and on mere apprehension, no sale can be ordered by the execution Court
in the second item. If any necessity arises in future, the execution Court
is always at its power to bring the second item also for sale. So I find no
reason to interfere with the order passed by the execution Court.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
21-02-2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
pnn
To
1.The Sub Judge, Karur.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
and
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
