[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.Krsna Murtii vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries ... on 25 February, 2026
C.R.P.(MD)No.2833 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.2833 of 2025
R.Krsna Murtii ... Petitioner
-vs.-
Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
Corporation Limited,
Chennai,
represented by its Branch Manager,
Trichy ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 30.07.2025
made in E.A.No.7 of 2025 in E.P.No.218 of 2018 in O.S.No.168 of 1989 on the
file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy and allow this Civil
Revision Petition.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Krsna Murtii
Party-in-person
For Respondent :Mr.F.Deepak
Special Government Pleader
for Mr.S.Ramesh
_______________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 05:50:12 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.2833 of 2025
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order
passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy, in E.A.No.7 of
2025 in E.P.No.218 of 2018 in O.S.No.168 of 1989, dated 30.07.2025.
2.Heard Mr.R.Krsna Murtii, petitioner/party-in-person and Mr.F.Deepak,
learned Special Government Pleader representing Mr.S.Ramesh, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent.
The briefs facts of the case are as follows:
3.The Revision Petitioner has originally filed a suit in O.S.No.168 of
1989 before the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai, against the respondent herein,
for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards repair and construction costs.
After trial, the said suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge,
Pudukottai, vide judgment and decree, dated 16.02.1995. Thereafter, the
petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court in A.S.No.418 of 1994 and
this Court vide judgment, dated 21.07.2010, had remanded the matter back to
the trial Court. After remand, the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, vide
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 05:50:12 pm )
judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2011, had decreed the suit.
4.Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, dated 31.10.2011, the respondent herein has
preferred an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2011 before the Additional District Court,
Pudukottai. The learned Additional District Judge, Pudukottai, vide judgment
and decree, dated 20.11.2013, had dismissed the appeal preferred by the
respondent and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
Thereafter, the petitioner/decree holder has filed an Execution Petition in
E.P.No.5 of 2012 before the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai for attachment and
sale of properties of the judgment debtor. As per the order passed by this Court
in Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.77 of 2014, the execution petition, which was filed before
the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai, was transferred to the Subordinate Court,
Trichy and the petition was taken on file in E.P.No.218 of 2014 on the file of
the Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy.
5.Thereafter, the respondent herein has filed Revision Petition before
this Court in C.R.P(MD)No.571 of 2020 to strike out the petition in E.P.No.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 05:50:12 pm )
218 of 2014 in O.S.No.168 of 1989 pending on the file of the II Additional
Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. This Court, vide order, dated 14.03.2022,
had passed the following order:
“46.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the execution
petition in E.P.No.218 of 2014 in O.S.No.168 of 1989 and the entire execution
proceedings, on the file of II Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli are
quashed. The petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two
Lakhs only) to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent is also permitted to withdraw
the amount deposited by the petitioner at the Executing Court. The petitions in
C.M.P.(MD)SRNo.63612 of 2021 and Cont.P.(MD)SR.No.30335 of 2021 are
rejected. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
6.Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A.No.7 of
2025 in E.P.No.218 of 2014 in O.S.No.168 of 1989 before the I Additional
Subordinate Court, Trichy, claiming a sum of Rs.4,22,780/- from the
respondent as on 15.04.2025. The learned I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Trichy, vide impugned order, dated 30.07.2025, had dismissed the said
application by holding that the respondent has paid the entire amount, as
directed by this Court in C.R.P(MD)No.571 of 2020, dated 14.03.2022.
Further, the petitioner has also filed a full satisfaction memo to the effect that
he has received a sum of Rs.19,07,000/- from the respondent. Challenging the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 05:50:12 pm )
same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
7.Mr.R.Krsna Murtii, petitioner/party-in-person, contended that the
impugned order passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy,
is against law. He also contended that the Court below has taken into account
the false date of filing of the suit as 10.04.1989, as given by the respondent,
instead of 10.01.1989. He also submitted that the order passed by the Court
below is vitiated by errors of jurisdiction and that the Court below has not
taken into consideration the documents filed in support of the application filed
by him. It is also his submission that without considering the affidavit filed in
support of his application as well as the documents produced, the Court below
has erroneously passed the impugned order, which is per se illegal and sought
interference of this Court.
8.Per contra, Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent submitted that as per the directions of this Court
in C.R.P(MD)No.571 of 2020, the respondent has paid the entire amount to the
petitioner and even after accepting the said amount, the petitioner has now
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 05:50:12 pm )
again knocking the doors of the Court, only with an intention to wasting the
Courts' time. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that
when two dates were available in the original decree, the calculation has been
made from 10.04.1989, which is the earliest date and the entire amount has
been settled, which was duly acknowledged by the revision petitioner, which is
evident from the counter filed in E.A.No.7 of 2025.
9.The learned Counsel for the respondent further pointed out the
acknowledgement memo filed by the revision petitioner in E.P.No.218 of 2014.
In the said memo, dated 18.02.2025, the revision petitioner had acknowledged
the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was duly received by him in his account
having account in State Bank of India on 27.11.2024. He vehemently
contended that the petitioner is a Court bird, as he has filed petitions after
petitions only with an intention to wasting the precious time of the Court as
well as the respondent, which must be deprecated by this Court. Hence, he
seeks dismissal of this petition.
10.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 05:50:12 pm )
11.From the perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner has
filed a suit in O.S.No.168 of 1989 before the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai,
against the respondent herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards
repair and construction costs, which was decreed on 31.10.2011 and was
confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pudukottai in A.S.No.9 of
2011, vide judgment and decree, dated 20.11.2013. When an execution
petition was filed, the same was challenged before this Court in C.RP(MD)No.
571 of 2020. This Court has directed the respondent to deposit the entire
amount with interest on or before 30.03.2020 and the same was deposited,
which was duly acknowledged by the revision petitioner herein. The revision
petitioner had not stated anything about the withdrawal of the amount and had
accepted the said amount and this Court in C.R.P(MD)No.561 of 2020 has
quashed the execution proceedings, which has reached finality.
12.Now, the petitioner has come up with new story that the calculation
made by the respondent is not as per law and there is a discrepancy in the
calculation made by the respondent and that the respondent has to pay more
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 05:50:12 pm )
money than what they actually paid, as per the direction of this Court. If the
petitioner is aggrieved by the wrong calculation made by the Court or by the
respondent, it is for him to file an appeal challenging the order with regard to
the calculation, however, without doing so, he again filed an application
seeking more money, which cannot be accepted by this Court. When that being
the case, the present challenge with regard to the wrong calculation and
agitated without filing any appeal as against the judgment and decree and
claimed that the calculation was not in accordance with the decree cannot be
agitated at this stage. This Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in
the order passed by the Court below.
13.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for want of
merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.02.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
cmr
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 05:50:12 pm )
To
The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 05:50:12 pm )
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
cmr
Order made in
25.02.2026
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 05:50:12 pm )
