Madras High Court
Arul Mozhi Selvi vs P.Palsamy on 12 June, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1643 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1643 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.8585 of 2025
P.Manokaran (died)
Arul Mozhi Selvi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.P.Palsamy
2.S.Karthika Mano
3.M.Perm Mano ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition - filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to strike off the execution petition in E.P.No.61 of 2024 in O.S.No.39
of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Sattur.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Manikandan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the execution
petition in E.P.No.61 of 2024 in O.S.No.39 of 2022 on the file of the Sub
Court, Sattur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:43 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1643 of 2025
2.Since no adverse order is going to be passed as against the
respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
3.The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.39 of 2022 on the file of the
Sub Court, Sattur. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. As
against said judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal before the
Lower Appellate Court. However, the same is yet to be numbered. In the
meanwhile, the respondent / plaintiff filed an execution proceedings in
E.P.No.61 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Court, Sattur. Seeking to strike off
the said execution petition, the petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition
is filed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed
an appeal as against the judgment and decree granted in favour of the
plaintiff. Though the said appeal is pending without numbering, the
execution petition was ordered. He further submits that the petitioner prefers
to deposit 50% of the decree amount before the Lower Appellate Court and
accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:43 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1643 of 2025
5.The fact remains that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery
of money and obtained a decree in his favour. When the decree is in force,
the decree holder is entitled to file an execution petition to execute the said
decree. If the defendant is aggrieved by the said decree, it is for him to
challenge the same within the time prescribed under the Limitation Act. In
the present case, even after a lapse of one year, the defendant did not take any
effective steps as against the decree holder. As such the execution petition
filed by the respondent/plaintiff was rightly allowed by the trial Court and the
said order need not be interfered with.
6.It is to be noted that though it is urged by the petitioner that the
petitioner is ready to deposit 50% of the decree amount in the pending appeal,
this Court is of the view that he can very well make such a plea before the
Lower Appellate Court. By way of this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner
is trying to achieve, what he could not achieve before the Lower Appellate
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:43 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1643 of 2025
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However,
liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy with regard to the
deposit of the decree amount before the Lower Appellate Court. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.06.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ta
To
1.The Sub Court, Sattur.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:43 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1643 of 2025
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
ta
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1643 of 2025
12.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:43 pm )
