Madras High Court
CRP/897/2024 of K.S.PRAVEEN Vs CHIT CONDUCTOR on 15 October 2026
CRP No. 897 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 897 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010244582024}
and
CMP NO.4458 OF 2024
K.S.Praveen
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.Chit Conductor
Margadarsi Chits Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Foreman Mr.R.Neelakantudu, No.AA-152, Kumaran Building, 3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar, chennai-600040
2.M/s.Angels Family Stop Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by Director Mr.Abishek Pesala and
L.V.Divya, Old No.11, New No.19, 15th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040
3.Abishek Pesala
4.Vijay Kumar D Jain
5.B.Prabhu
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside order dt. 17.10.2023 in EP No.4831/2022 in ARC
No.207/2020 passed by the Learned IX Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai and to allow the above Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
T.Sundaravadanam
For Respondent(s):
M/s.D.Shivakumaran
R2 To R5 – Notice returned
CRP No. 897 of 2024
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court allowing the execution petition filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner and other respondents.
2. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent herein obtained arbitral award under the provisions of Chit Funds Act against the petitioner and other respondents. The 2nd respondent is the defaulting subscriber of the chit conducted by the 1st respondent and the petitioner is the guarantor of the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner and other respondents failed to satisfy the award obtained by the 1st respondent, the execution petition was filed in E.P.No.4831 of 2022 to bring the subject property for sale and realisation of the award amount. The said Execution Petition has been allowed by the Executing Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only the guarantor and the principal borrower is the 2nd respondent but the 1st respondent without proceeding against the property of the principal borrower, proceeded against the property of the petitioner. Therefore, according to him the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. It is settled law, the liability of guarantor is co-extensive with that of
CRP No. 897 of 2024 the principal borrower. Therefore, the petitioner as a guarantor cannot dictate to the creditor to proceed against the properties of the principal borrower by leaving his property.
5. It is always open to the petitioner / guarantor to pay the award debt to the 1st respondent and recover the amount from the principal borrower on the basis of the agreement between them.
6. Therefore, I do not find any legal error in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index : Yes Speaking order:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes ub To The IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
CRP No. 897 of 2024 S.SOUNTHAR J. ub CRP No. 897 of 2024 15-10-2026