Madras High Court
M.Mohammed Raffi vs Jayapriya Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd on 10 October, 2025
C.R.P.No.4904 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.R.P.No.4904 of 2025
and
CMP.No.24791 of 2025
M.Mohammed Raffi
... Petitioner / Petitioner /
1st defendant / Judgment Debtor
Versus
1. Jayapriya Chit funds Pvt. Ltd.,
Villupuram Branch,
represented by its Foreman and
having office at No.668, Nehruji Road,
3rd floor, Near Gandhi Statue, Villupuram.
... Respondent / Petitioner /
Petitioner / Decree Holder
2. V.Suresh Babu
3. B. Jageerhussain
4. M.Mohamed Eliyas
5. N.Ranjithsingh
6. S.Muthukumaran
7. A.Harikovintham
8. M.Mohammed Riaz
... Respondents / Petitioners /
Defendants 2 to 8 / Judgment Debtors
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
C.R.P.No.4904 of 2025
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of
India, to issue suitable directions to the learned I Additional Judge,
Villupuram, to hear and dispose of the pending E.P.No.2 of 2019 in
ARC.No.29 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time
frame that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Govinda Prasad
ORDER
Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in E.P.No.2 of
2019 in ARC.No.29 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Judge,
Villupuram, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that the first respondent / Decree Holder had filed A.R.C.No.29 of
2015 before the learned I Additional Judge, Villupuram, and the same was
allowed in favour of the first respondent / Decree Holder. Thereafter, the
first respondent / Decree Holder initiated Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.2
of 2019 to enforce the said award. However, despite the lapse of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
considerable time, the execution petition is still pending without final
disposal. The revision petitioner has already filed his counter affidavit and
additional counter affidavit in the said proceedings and has also paid a
substantial portion of the admitted amount to the first respondent. The
prolonged pendency of the execution petition has caused grave prejudice and
hardship to the petitioner, who is suffering for no fault of his. Hence, he
would further submit that the speedy disposal of E.P.No.2 of 2019 in
ARC.No.29 of 2015 is just and necessary.
3. It is pertinent to mention that High Court cannot issue such
directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification (or) acceptable
reasons for issuing any such directions. It is relevant to cite the judgment of
this Court in S.Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
Mad 674, wherein, it has been held in paragraph nos.11 and 12 as follows:
“11. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision
Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of
cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in
discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting
for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations
against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
disposed of. The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to
be taken into consideration, while disposing of the cases. The
Court shall not pave way for such feeling to the litigants. The
trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of
favouritism, nepotism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing
of cases selectively will have larger repercussions on the system.
No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently, if there is
a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish
genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases
alone are to be given priority.
12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation
without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided.
Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for
justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and
without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions
indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no
service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be
considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the
urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered.”
4. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra
reported in 2024 INSC 899, wherein, it has been held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
“In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of
in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, this Court has
held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should
refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases
pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:
“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should
refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal
of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional
courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of
cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of
prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the
decision of the courts concerned where the cases are
pending;” (underline supplied)
A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being
routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by
the Constitution Bench.”
5. By applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments, fixing a
time-bound schedule for the Court below to dispose of the cases pending
therein is not warranted. The Court concerned is expected to regulate its own
procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to ensure
that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
6. In view of the same, the learned I Additional Judge, Villupuram,
is requested to dispose of the case in E.P.No.2 of 2019 in ARC.No.29 of
2015 as expeditiously as possible.
7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
No costs.
10.10.2025
av
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
To
The learned I Additional Judge, Villupuram,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
av
and
10.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
