Madras High Court
Elumalai vs D.Ramanujam on 22 January, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.858 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.858 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.6444 of 2023
Elumalai ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.D.Ramanujam
2.Lalitha
3.Santhanadhan ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against
the order and decreetal order dated 06.02.2023 made in E.A.No.3 of 2022 in
E.P.No.38 of 2009 in O.S.No.343 of 2022 by the learned Principal Sub Judge,
Puducherry.
For Petitioner : Ms.G.Sumitra
For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Baskaran – for R1
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the order dated 06.02.2023 made in E.A.No.3 of
2022 in E.P.No.38 of 2009 in O.S.No.343 of 2022, dismissing the application filed by
the revision petitioner to implead himself in the Execution Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The background of the case is that, originally a suit has been filed by the
first respondent herein for recovery of money as against the respondents 2 and 3
for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest at 12%. The judgment has been
passed decreeing the suit as prayed for with interest at 12% per annum from the
date of the plaint till the date of the plaint. However, in the decree the interest has
been restricted to 6% per annum on the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the date of the
plaint till the date of realisation.
3. During the pendency of the suit, an application has been taken out by the
decree holder for attachment of the property before judgment in I.A.No.1456 of
2002. It appears that the said application has been ordered. The revision petitioner
has also filed another application in I.A.No.2181 of 2004 to raise the attachment,
raising the contention that he has purchased the property on 02.01.2003, much
prior to the judgment. However, the said application has been dismissed by the
Trial Court, which has been confirmed on appeal in C.M.A.No.3 of 2015 and finally
on appeal before this Court in C.M.S.A.No.1 of 2016, wherein, it is observed by this
Court that the purchase is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and that the petitioner
is not a bonafide purchaser.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The finding of this Court made in C.M.S.A.No.1 of 2016 has reached
finality. Though this Court is not in a position to concur with the legal position to
apply the doctrine of lis pendens to the money decree, the fact remains that the
observation made against the petitioner has reached finality, as the judgment has
not been challenged.
6. Be that as it may. The decree holder, to realise the amount, has made an
attempt to bring the property for sale. At this stage, the revision petitioner has filed
an application to implead himself in the execution proceedings. That application has
been dismissed citing the earlier orders passed as against the petitioner.
7. The main ground on which the challenge has been made by the revision
petitioner is that, the interest ordered in the judgment was only 6% from the date
of the plaint till the date of realisation, whereas the decree has been drafted for
12% interest from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation. According to the
petitioner, they are willing to deposit the amount as per the judgment, whereas the
learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that since the decree
indicates the interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the decree will prevail over the
judgment. The parties are not in dispute insofar as the other aspects are concerned.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decree will prevail over the judgment has no legs to stand. The decree has to be
drafted only in terms of the judgment and not vice-versa. Merely because the
decree has been drafted improperly by the Court, that will not give any leverage to
the plaintiff to claim extra interest. At the most, the plaintiff is entitled to 6%
interest from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation as directed in the
judgment. Now the revision petitioner is also willing to deposit that amount.
9. In that view of the matter, since the concern of the decree holder is only
to realise the amount, the revision petitioner is permitted to implead himself in the
execution petition. Therefore, the order rejecting the impleadment shall stand set
aside and the revision petitioner is impleaded as a party in the Execution Petition.
The revision petitioner may deposit the principal amount along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation to the
credit of the Execution Petition. On such deposit, the attachment made by way of
the order in I.A.No.1456 of 2022 shall be raised by the trial Court and the same
shall be intimated to the concerned Registrar Office.
10. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
KST
To
The Principal Sub Judge,
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
KST
22.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
