Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/1921/2023 of MURUGAN Vs KOYILANDI on 15 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 1921 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9598 of 2023
{CNR: HCMD010863562023}
Case QR
1. Murugan
... Petitioner(s)
–
Vs. -
1. Koyilandi
... Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated 15.12.2022 passed in EP No.12 of 2017 in OS No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Theni and allow the present Civil Revision Petition and thus render justice.
For Petitioners
: Mr.M.Saravanan
For Respondent
: Mr.S.Jeyakarthik
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 against the order dated 15.12.2022 passed in EP No.12 of 2017 in OS No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Theni
2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No.7 of 2014 instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment and decree. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P. No. 12 of 2017 under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking arrest and detention of the petitioner/defendant in execution of the decree. The said Execution Petition was allowed by the trial Court.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the trial Court failed to conduct a means enquiry and, without conducting any such enquiry, passed an order of arrest against the petitioner. It is contended that the said order of arrest is illegal and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is present and opposed the petition.
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent/plaintiff had already examined himself as P.W.1 and deposed that the petitioner was having a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as ready cash and was also working in TASMAC, earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. He further deposed that, with an intention to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, the petitioner had been prolonging the proceedings. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner had filed an Execution Petition, which was subsequently not pressed by him, and the same had remained pending for nearly four years.
6. The revision petitioner has not denied that he is working in a TASMAC shop. However, he contended that the income derived therefrom is only sufficient to meet his livelihood expenses and, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has failed to establish that he has sufficient means to satisfy the decree. Since the petitioner himself has admitted that he is a Government employee, he has not filed any petition disputing the said fact. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the trial Court failed to conduct a means enquiry does not appear to be correct.
7. Since the trial Court has already conducted a means enquiry and found that the revision petitioner/defendant has sufficient means to satisfy the decree, the order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
15.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam.
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
R.POORNIMA
, J. Ns CRP(MD) NO. 1921 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.9598 of 2023 15.09.2026