Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2607 (MAD)

R. Ramasamy @ Srinivasan v. R. Subramani

2013-07-23

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order of arrest made by the Executing Court in E.P.No. 58 of 2006 in O.S.No. 294 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram. 2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner in O.S.No. 294 of 2001 seeking for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The said suit was decreed on 14.6.2005. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an execution petition in E.P.No. 58 of 2006 on 07.7.2006. The decree holder has also filed an affidavit showing the means of the judgment debtor. Thereafter, the Court below has issued notice to the judgment debtor and he has also filed a counter affidavit in the said execution petition. In paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit, the judgment debtor admitted that he is doing business at Kankeyam. It is the contention of the judgment debtor that the suit pro-note was obtained by coercion. The Court below has rejected the said contention and ordered arrest of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved against the same, the present civil revision petition is filed before this Court. 3. Though this Court, on earlier two occasions, granted sufficient time to the petitioner to settle the matter, Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner today informed that he is not in a position to contact his client as the petitioner had already vacated the premises where he was previously living. Therefore, he has no instructions from his client. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the Court below would show that the petitioner suffered a decree in O.S.No. 294 of 2001 and it is stated that the said decree has become final. When the decree holder filed an execution petition and also filed a means affidavit, the petitioner herein as the respondent in the said execution petition, filed a counter affidavit wherein, he has admitted that he is doing business in beef sale and cattle skin at Kankeyam. W hen he is admitting that he is doing a business, certainly, he is a man of means and bound to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff/ decree holder. The Court below has found that the reasons given by the petitioner are not acceptable and those reasons cannot be raised after suffering a decree. W hen he is admitting that he is doing a business, certainly, he is a man of means and bound to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff/ decree holder. The Court below has found that the reasons given by the petitioner are not acceptable and those reasons cannot be raised after suffering a decree. I find that the order of Court below is just and proper and does not warrant any interference especially, under the circumstances when the petitioner, inspite of having means, has not come forward to settle the suit claim. Therefore, I find no infirmity or irregularity in the order of the Court below dated 5.2.2007 passed in E.P.No. 58 of 2006 in O.S.No. 294 of 2001 and accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2007 is dismissed. No costs.