Madras High Court
CRP/3666/2026 of M.R.SOUNDARARAJAN Vs R.Rajasekar on 7 October 2026
CRP No. 3666 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 3666 of 2026
and
CMP.No.15912 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011231322026}
M.R.Soundararajan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
R.Rajasekar
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Judgement and Decree order Dated 06.04.2026
passed in EP.No.1555 of 2024 in OS.No.995 of 2024 on the file of IX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.P.Rajalakshmi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.S.L.Ramu
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
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court, allowing the Execution Petition filed by the respondent, ordering civil arrest of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent/decree holder obtained a money decree against the petitioner in O.S.No.995 of 2024. The said decree was put into execution in the Execution Petition filed by the respondent. The total
CRP No. 3666 of 2026
Execution Petition amount is Rs.18,35,466/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Six only). The respondent in the Execution Petition sought for arrest of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor as he failed to satisfy the decree. The said Execution Petition was opposed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that he had no means to repay the debt. The Executing Court, after considering the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/Judgment Debtor had sufficient means to satisfy the decree and hence ordered arrest of the petitioner by allowing the Execution Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the respondent admittedly failed to prove the means of the petitioner to satisfy the decree and hence, the Executing Court ought not to have ordered arrest of the petitioner by allowing the Execution Petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, by taking this Court to the admissions of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has sufficient means to satisfy the decree amount and hence, the Executing Court was justified in ordering arrest of the petitioner.
5. Before the Executing Court, the respondent/decree holder was examined as PW1. He deposed that the petitioner/Judgment Debtor possessed a
CRP No. 3666 of 2026
light motor vehicle and the petitioner has sufficient income by doing licensing work. The petitioner has been examined as R.W.1 and during his cross- examination, he clearly admitted that he purchased an Innova car, worth about Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs) by availing a loan. He further admitted that he is residing in a rented house and the monthly rent was Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). He also admitted that he received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) as loan from the decree holder.
6. Though in the further examination, the petitioner/Judgment Debtor deposed as if he sold the Innova vehicle to a third party, he has not produced any material before the Court to substantiate the sale of the vehicle. It was also admitted by him that the RC Book stood in his name and he had not taken any steps to change the same. In the absence of any concrete evidence to show that the vehicle purchased by the petitioner worth about Rs.21,00,000/- was sold to a third party, the mere self-interested testimony of the petitioner as RW1 is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the vehicle was sold to a third party and as on today, he has no property in his name.
7. Based on the admissions of RW1, the Executing Court came to the conclusion that he owns a car worth about Rs.21,00,000/- and he is capable of paying rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, the contention
CRP No. 3666 of 2026
raised by the petitioner in the counter as if he was a person of no means to satisfy the decree is not acceptable.
8. The Executing Court, by properly ascertaining the evidence available on record, gave a finding that the petitioner is a person of means and due to his failure to satisfy the decree, allowed the Execution Petition, ordering his arrest. I do not find any error in the order.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kak To The learned Judge, IX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai.
CRP No. 3666 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. kak CRP No. 3666 of 2026 and CMP.No.15912 of 2026
07-10-2026