CRP/3217/2026 of Poan Dhanasu Vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Chit Funds (P) Ltd on 23 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

The Judgment Debtor in the Execution Proceedings are the revision petitioners.

2. I have heard Mr.V.T.Narendiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Y.Jyothish Chander, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder.

3. Mr.V.T.Narendiran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would firstly state that though two Execution Petitions have been laid against the revision petitioner, one of the Execution Petitions is hopelessly barred by limitation and the respondent cannot maintain the Execution Petition itself.

3. Insofar as the other revision petition itself, it is the contention of Mr.V.T.Narendiran, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not shying away from meeting his liability, but in view of the liquidity crunch and an admitted factum of all properties of the petitioner being subject to attachment or some form of encumbrance, the petitioner is unable to settle the claim of the respondent. He would in fact state that two of the immovable properties are already attached in favour of the respondent and are in fact, sufficiently covered by mortgage as well and hence, the petitioner is not in a position to get the best market price for the said properties. He would therefore pray for the order of attachment to be raised to enable the petitioner to mobilise the funds by selling such extent of properties that would be sufficient to meet the legitimate claims

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:34 pm )

of the respondent/decree holder. He would therefore pray for the revision petitions being allowed.

4. Per contra, Mr.Jyothish Chander, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder would state that even according to the petitioner, the petitioner is in financially involved circumstances and no error or infirmity can be found with the action of the respondent in proceeding against the properties over which the petitioner has already created a mortgage in favour of the respondent. Insofar as the plea of limitation, Mr.Jyothish Chander, learned counsel for the respondent, would state that the Execution Petition was filed within one month after the relaxation of Covid period exemption granted by the Hon'ble Court and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that one of the Execution Petitions is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. He would however state that the respondent is not interested in selling the mortgage properties for a song and they are willing to cooperate with the petitioner, if the petitioner is able to bring a purchaser who will first settle the dues of the respondent, in order to enable the petitioner to retain the balance sale consideration, if any. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petitions.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:34 pm )

6. As regards, the issue of limitation, I do not find any merits in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The ARC proceedings insofar as EP. No.36 of 2024, which is subject matter of CRP. No.3218 of 2026, were initiated on 13.04.2022. The argument of Mr.V.T.Narandiran, is that the chit agreement was commenced in the year 2017 and admittedly, the petitioner had paid 18 chit amounts without any default and in respect of the 19th chit, he had paid 2/3 of the amounts. Mortgage deeds were also executed by the petitioner, by registered deeds of deposit of title deeds on the file of the respective Sub Registrar's Office.

8. Though it is contended by the petitioner that the award was passed hastily and without affording a fair opportunity to the petitioner, admittedly, the award has become final and it is too late in the day for the petitioner to raise the issue of limitation. In any event, admittedly, the entire Country was under the grip of Covid waves and realising the difficulties of litigants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court exempted the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.

9. In the present case, where the revision petitioner alleges the claim to be barred by limitation, admittedly, on the date of the Covid exemption period commencing, the respondent still had balance period of limitation available, to file the proceedings and in right earnest, as soon as the Covid pandemic

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:34 pm )

subsided and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also granting exemption up to 28.02.2022, the respondent promptly filed the proceedings on 13.04.2022. Merely because the respondent has not cited Covid as one of the reasons for filing the claim on 13.04.2022, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has uniformly excluded the period of limitation and given suitable directions to all Courts and Tribunals, I do not see it necessary for the respondent to have specifically fallen back on the Covid pandemic to explain the delay in filing the claim petition. Hence, the argument with regard to limitation fails.

10. In fact, the petitioner does not dispute the amount due and payable to the respondent. His only grievance is that all his immovable properties are secured or attached to and in favour of the creditors and two of the immovable properties are already mortgaged in favour of the respondent herein, and if the said properties are sold in Court auction, then they may not fetch the actual market price which is likely to cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Apart from this, I do not find any other ground attacking the order of attachment on merits of the order passed by the Executing Court, excepting the issue of limitation in respect of one Execution Petition, which I have already dealt with herein above.

11. In the light of the above, I do not see any illegality or perversity in the order of Execution Court, ordering attachment of the properties that have already mortgaged in favour of the respondent. It is only a first step in aid of

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:34 pm )

realisation of the amounts due and payable to the respondent. In fact, the Executing Court has also clearly observed the value of the properties and the extent of properties which are to be brought for sale can always be agitated at the appropriate time and that cannot be a ground to deny an order of attachment in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the well considered order of the Executing Court does not warrant any interference.

12. However, considering the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would bring a private purchaser for purchase of the properties that are subject matter of mortgage with the respondent, at prevailing market rates, I am inclined to grant time till 30.11.2026 to the petitioner to bring a purchaser of his choice who would first settle the outstanding amounts due and payable to the respondent and balance if any, available from the agreed sale consideration to be paid to the petitioner. If any, such purchaser is brought by the petitioner, the respondent shall cooperate for facilitating raising of the attachment order to such extent as it may be necessary to ensure sale of the property unencumbered, so that the respondent also will be in a position to realise the amounts due and payable. It is needless to state that if the petitioner does not bring any purchaser and settle the dues of the respondent on or before 30.11.2026, then it shall be open to the respondent to proceed to bring the properties attached for sale, in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 CPC.

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:34 pm )

13. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:34 pm )

P.B.BALAJI J. rkp CRP Nos. 3217 & 3218 of 2026 AND CMP NOs. 14057 &14056 OF 2026 23.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:34 pm )