Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2799/2026 of Kubbusamy Vs Manimagalai on 15 October 2026
CRP(MD) No. 2799 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2799 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011310662026}
and
C.M.P(MD)No.14343 of 2026
Kubbusamy,
S/o.Erulan,
Chitharevu,
Palani Taluk,
Dindigul District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Manimagalai,
W/o.Murugan,
Chitharevu,
Palani Taluk,
Dindigul District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: J-35. Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the impugned order on 03.07.2026 made the E.P.No.40 of 2025 in O.S.No.320 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Subordiante Judge, Palani and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s Govinda Vasagam B
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 petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.320 of 2022 against the petitioner/defendant for recovery __________
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )
CRP(MD) No. 2799 of 2026 of money before the Additional Sub-Court, Palani Dindigul District.
2. According to the petitioner/judgment debtor/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff had obtained a fraudulent decree, as the petitioner specifically disputed the signature in the promissory note. The suit was decreed on 05.04.2024. Aggrieved by the said decree, the petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 83 of 2025 before the Additional District Court, Palani. While the said appeal was pending, the respondent/plaintiff, allegedly suppressing the pendency of the appeal, initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 40 of 2025. In the appeal, the petitioner filed a petition seeking the assistance of a handwriting expert to ascertain the genuineness of the signature appearing on the promissory note. In the meantime, an ex-parte order was passed, and the Court Amin arrested the petitioner and produced him before the court. At that stage, the petitioner claims that he was compelled to pay the amount under pressure from the court. Aggrieved by the order passed by the executing court, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking appropriate relief.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. __________
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )
CRP(MD) No. 2799 of 2026
4. In the present case, the suit had already been decreed against the petitioner/defendant. Though the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the decree, he had not obtained any order of stay of its execution. Consequently, the respondent initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 40 of 2025, seeking the arrest of the judgment debtor. Even after receiving notice in the execution petition, the petitioner appeared before the executing court and filed a counter stating that he had already preferred an appeal against the decree. However, he had not obtained any order of stay from the appellate court. In the absence of any order staying the execution proceedings, the executing court proceeded further and ordered the arrest of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was arrested by the Amin and produced before the executing court. The proceedings recorded by the executing court reveal that, at that stage, the petitioner agreed to pay the amount due and paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as an advance towards the decretal amount. The executing court recorded the said undertaking and released the petitioner on execution of a muchalika.
5. This Court finds no error or illegality in the order passed by the executing court. The petitioner himself admitted his liability and undertook to pay the decretal amount, pursuant to which he __________
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )
CRP(MD) No. 2799 of 2026 paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as an advance. Having made such an undertaking before the executing court, the petitioner cannot now resile from the same by contending that the payment was made under compulsion. In the absence of any material to substantiate such a contention, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the executing court.
6. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NS __________
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )
CRP(MD) No. 2799 of 2026 To
1. The Additional Subordiante Judge, Palani.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. __________
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )
CRP(MD) No. 2799 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. NS CRP(MD) No. 2799 of 2026 15-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )