Madras High Court
CRP/1533/2026 of N.Sonai Muthu Vs R.Ravinder Kumar on 12 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 1533, 1604 & 1605 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010352742026}
CMP.Nos.7252, 7558 and 7559 of 2026
In CRP.No.1533 of 2026
N.Sonai Muthu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
R.Ravinder Kumar(HUF)
Rep.by its Manager and Karta R.Ravinder Kumar, S/o.Late G.Rishabchand, No.30, Govindu St, T.Nagar,Chennai 017
..Respondent(s)
In CRP No. 1605 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010328522026}
N. Sonai Muthu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
R. Nihhaal
..Respondent(s)
In CRP No. 1604 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010328532026}
N. Sonai Muthu
..Petitioner (s)
Vs
R. Ravinder Kumar
..Respondent(s)
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:37 pm )
PRAYER in
CRP No. 1533 of 2026
: Civil Revision Petition filed Section 115
of CPC, praying to set aside the order and decretal order dated 4.12.2025
passed by the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in EA.No.1/2025 in EP.No. 2823/2016 in OS.NO. 2650/2014.
PRAYER in
CRP No. 1605 of 2026
: Civil Revision Petition filed Section 115
of CPC, praying to set aside the order and decretal order dated 04.12.2025
passed by the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in EA No. 2 of 2025 in EP
No. 2843of 2016 in OS No. 2648 of 2014.
PRAYER in
CRP No. 1604 of 2026
: Civil Revision Petition filed Section 115
of CPC,praying to set aside the order and decretal order dated 04.12.2025
passed by the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in EA No. 1 of 2025 in EP
No. 2856 of 2016 in OS No. 2649 of 2014.
For Petitioner(s)
in all CRP’s
Mr.T.T.Ravichandran
for Mr.S.I.Sharukumar
For Respondent(s):
in all CRP’s
Mr.M.Nandhakumar
for M/s.Eswar, Kumar and Rao (Law Firm)
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.
COMMON ORDER
These civil revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court allowing the amendment of the description of the schedule of property mentioned in the execution petitions.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:37 pm )
2. It is not in dispute that the respondents obtained a decree for money against the petitioner in three different suits. The said decrees were put into execution in three different execution petitions filed by the respondents. In the execution, the property described in the schedule to the execution petition was ordered to be attached. Since there was some difficulty in locating the property with the description available in the schedule, the respondents/decree holders filed applications in EA.No.1 of 2025 and EA.No.2 of 2025 in the respective EP’s seeking amendment of the description of the property found in the execution petitions. By impugned order, the Executing Court allowed the amendment applications. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that some of the creditors of the petitioner/judgment debtor filed an insolvency petition against the petitioner before this Court in I.P.Nos.22 and 53 of 2014 and in the said petitions, the petitioner has been adjudicated as insolvent. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner should be discharged of the execution proceedings and the Official Assignee shall be made as a party to the execution proceedings. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court, without impleading the Official Assignee, cannot be sustained.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:37 pm )
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present execution petitions were filed by their clients in the year 2016. The petitioner/ judgment debtor filed his counter as early as 2017. The petitioner filed applications for filing various documents and the same were allowed on 12.10.2018. The petitioner was examined in the execution proceedings in the year 2019. Later, the execution petition was dismissed and the said order was set aside in a revision filed by the respondents in CRP.Nos.1493, 1494 and 1498 of 2023. In all these proceedings, the petitioner suppressed the alleged adjudication by the Insolvency Court. It is further submitted that the present application is only an amendment to the description of the property found in the schedule in the execution petitions. The presence of Official Assignee may be required only when the execution petitions are taken up for consideration on merits. Therefore, according to him, no interference is called for with the impugned order.
5. As mentioned above, the present execution petitions are filed by the respondents/decree holders seeking execution of the money decree against the petitioner/judgment debtor. In the execution petitions, the properties of the judgment debtor are attached and in view of difficulty in locating the property, the decree holders have come up with this present applications seeking amendment of the description of the property. A perusal of the amendment
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:37 pm )
applications filed by the respondents would indicate that they want to add certain new details in the description of the property so as to identify the property precisely. Therefore, the amendment applications filed by the respondents is only clarificatory in nature and it is not going to affect the decision on merits. It is true that on declaration of petitioner/judgment debtor as insolvent by the Insolvency Court, the estate of the judgment debtor will vest with the Official Assignee and he must be made as a party to the proceedings. Further, Section 18(3) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 would make it clear that whenever the order of the adjudication has been brought to the notice of this Court in a pending proceedings against the debtor, the Court may stay the proceedings or allow the proceedings to continue on such terms as it may think just. In the case on hand, the amendment applications have been filed to exactly identify the property that belonged to the judgment debtor. Only if the amendment applications are allowed and identification of the property is made possible, the property of the judgment debtor will become the subject matter of the main EP’s. If the description of the properties is vague or not useful, we may not be in a position to come to a definite conclusion whether the estate of the judgment debtor is a subject matter of the EP or not. Therefore, application of Section 18(3) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 will come into picture only when it is clear that the property of the judgment debtor is a subject matter of the execution petitions. The impugned order will not affect the properties described in the schedule to the execution petition in any way.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:37 pm )
Likewise, it will not affect the rights of the Official Assignee or body of creditors of the judgment debtor unless any order is passed on merits in the main EP. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the Executing Court in the impugned order, allowing of the amendment applications will not affect the case of the either party on merits in EP. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the amendment applications shall be allowed only in the presence of Official Assignee. However, after allowing of the amendment applications, it is absolutely necessary for the Executing Court to follow the mandate under Section 18(3) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and consider the execution petition in the light of the said provision. Hence, I do not find anything to interfere with the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are disposed of with a clarification that after allowing of the present amendment applications, while considering the main EP, the Executing Court shall take into consideration the mandate of Section 18(3) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and pass appropriate orders. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nr
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:37 pm )
To The IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:37 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR J. NR CRP Nos. 1533, 1604 & 1605 of 2026 and CMP.Nos.7252, 7558 and 7559 of 2026 12-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:37 pm )