CRP(MD)/2447/2026 of K.Saravanan Vs M/s.Shriram Finance Co.Ltd. on 3 September 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 31.07.2026 passed in E.P.No.100 of 2025 in Arb.No.355 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Karur.

2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The 1st respondent is the decree holder. The 1st respondent filed a petition in E.P.No.100 of 2025 under Order 21, Rules 37 and 38 of CPC, seeking to issue notice to the petitioner/judgment debtor and to issue an Order 21, Rule 22 notice and put him into civil prison.

3. The petitioner states that he is only a guarantor and that since the principal debtor failed to repay the amount due, the present E.P. has been filed seeking his arrest. He further states that the arbitration notice was served upon him, but he did not appear in the arbitration proceedings and therefore, an ex-parte award being passed against him. He further states that no pre-arbitration notice was served upon him. The vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 28 L 7237 is not standing in his name. The 2nd respondent alone had executed a hire purchase agreement with one Periyasamy, and the said agreement has not been terminated till date. He, therefore, contends that mere handing over of possession, after executing

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )

C.R.P(MD)No.2447 of 2026 a sale agreement, would not, by itself, shift the liability arising under the hire purchase agreement upon the petitioner. The petitioner further contends that the 1st respondent, being the financier, has not followed the procedure contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Act. As per Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the hypothecation continues to stand in the name of one Periyasamy, and that the registering authority is required to make an appropriate entry in the registration certificate of the vehicle regarding the existence of such an agreement. It is, therefore, contended that the award was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, prayed that the Civil Revision Petition be allowed and the execution petition be dismissed.

4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court rightly held that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. Admittedly, a decree is operating against the petitioner/judgment debtor in favour of the decree holder. Unless and until the said decree is set aside by the competent Court, the executing Court is bound to give effect to the decree in accordance with law. The trial Court has rightly observed that, at the stage of execution, it cannot adjudicate upon the question as to whether the

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )

C.R.P(MD)No.2447 of 2026 arbitral award is legally enforceable in law.

5. Once a decree has been passed in favour of the respondent, the executing Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the decree. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the arbitral award, it was incumbent upon him to challenge the same in the manner known to law. The petitioner cannot, at the stage of execution, raise such an objection before the executing Court, questioning the legality of the decree. Having failed to challenge the same, there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

03.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )

C.R.P(MD)No.2447 of 2026 To The District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )

C.R.P(MD)No.2447 of 2026 R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2447 of 2026 03.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )