Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2432/2026 of G.Sivakumar Vs Jayapriya Chit Fund (P) Ltd. on 3 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2432 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11938 of 2026
1.G.Sivakumar
2.S.Hariharan
3.P.Rajmohan
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.Jayapriya Chit Fund (P) Ltd.,
Rep. By its Branch Manager Kannan
Office at 1st Floor, 71/1, Opp. Swasti Lab, John Selvaraj Nagar, Kumbakonam.
2.P.Veeramani
3.G.Mohan Raj
4.Baskar
5.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Thiruvidaimaruthur.
6.The Commissioner,
Kumbakonam Municipality,
Kumbakonam.
7.The Executive Engineer,
TNEB/O & M/Kumbakonam.
...Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 04.03.2026 passed in E.P.No.193 of 2022 in A.R.C.No.79 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.M.Iqbal
For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan – for R6
*****
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 04.03.2026 passed in E.P.No.193 of 2022 in A.R.C.No.79 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,Kumbakonam. The said EP is filed under Order XXI, Rule 48 of CPC to order for attachment of the salary of the respondents 2 to 5through their garnishee and to deposit the same and permit the decree holder to withdraw the same.
2. The 1st respondent/ decree holder filed a case in ARC.No. 79 of 2019 before the Arbitrator and after adjudicating the matter on 26.12.2019 an award was passed by the Arbitrator, directing the petitioners/judgment debtors jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.7,82,317/- together with interest at 24% per annum on that sum till the date of realization and also to pay sum of Rs.39,630/- towards the costs of the proceedings and also interest at the rate of 24% per annum on Rs.5,64,950 from 29.07.2019 to 31.05.2022, Rs.3,86,333/-. The total payable amount including other charges are Rs.12,13,238/-.
3. According to the 1st respondent/decree holder, after passing of the award, the petitioners/judgment debtors neither filed a set aside petition nor preferred any appeal within the time as prescribed by law. Hence, he filed execution petition for attachment.
4. The revision petitioners/judgment debtors filed a counter stating that they already paid a certain amount, which was not deducted and that they are ready to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month towards the decree amount.
5. The trial Court after perusing the records, allowed the petition by stating that the revision petitioners have not filed any documentary evidence or oral evidence to prove the payment already effected. The trial Court further held that they have raised only bald allegations without any merits and also held that no appeal had been filed against the award and allowed the petition.
6. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the award amount. But without considering the same the execution Court allowed the execution petition. Hence, prayed to set aside the order of the execution Court by allowing the civil revision petition.
7. Perusal of record shows that the petitioners had made some payment in the year 2017. But they have not filed any receipts to show that they have paid the amount after the arbitration. If the revision petitioners are really aggrieved by the order passed by the Arbitration, they ought to have filed an appeal challenging the arbitration award. But, they have not challenged the same. The executing Court clearly held that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The petitioners now state that they are ready to settle the matter amicably.
8. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the 1st respondent/decree holder and settle the matter. But there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
03.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To The Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam.
R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2432 of 2026 03.09.2026