There is no necessity for the the degree holder to specify the particular court in which an execution petition should be filed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.06.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(NPD).No.298 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1.Dhana. Maniarasan 2.Shanthi 3.P.Jayalakshmi ... Petitioners Vs. The Foreman Jayapriya Chit Funds (P) Ltd., Neyveli 2. ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 13.08.2010 made in E.P.No.14 of 2010 in A.R.No.468 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sub Court No.1, Cuddalore. For Petitioners : Mr.T.S.Baskaran For Respondent : Mr.V.Manisekaran O R D E R
Challenging the order passed in the Execution Petition in E.P.No.14 of 2010 in A.R.No.468 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sub Court No.1, Cuddalore, the judgment debtors have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2.Pursuant to the award passed in the Arbitration Proceedings in A.R.No.468 of 2007 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Cuddalore, the respondent filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.14 of 2010. The petitioners/ judgment debtors filed their counter stating that the Execution Petition is liable to be rejected on the ground that Section 55 of the Chit Funds Rules, 1984 was not followed by the respondent. As per Section 55 (2) of the Chit Funds Rules, the applicant should state whether he desires to execute the award through a Civil Court or through the Revenue Authorities as provided under Section 71.
3.The learned counsel for the respondent produced the application for execution of the award under Rule 55 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Rules, 1984 dated 09.08.2007 pertaining to the Award No.468 of 2007 made by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Cuddalore wherein an endorsement has been made forwarding the papers to the Sub Court, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District, along with the Award and Certificate. A certificate under Section 71(a) of the Chit Funds Act 1982 has also been annexed to the application dated 09.08.2007.
4.Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the papers were forwarded to the Sub Court, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District, the present petition filed by the respondent before the Additional Sub Court No.1, Cuddalore is not maintainable because under Section 55 (2), the papers were forwarded only to the Sub Court, Virudhachalam.
5.On a perusal of the provisions of Section 55 (2), it is clear that it would be suffice that the applicant stating that whether he desires to execute the award through a Civil Court or through the Revenue Authorities as provided under Section 71. There is no necessity for the respondent to specify the particular Court in which an Execution Petition should be filed. It would be suffice to state whether the applicant wants to execute the award through a Civil Court or through the Revenue Authorities. In the case on hand, though the endorsement made in the application dated 09.08.2007 states Sub Court, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District that itself is not required as per Section 55 (2) of the Chit Funds Rules, 1984. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
6.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had followed the procedures laid down in the Chit Funds Act and filed the Execution Petition. In these circumstances, the Execution Court has allowed the Execution Petition and ordered attachment of the salary. The order passed by the Execution Court is just and proper.
7.In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Execution Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Comments
Post a Comment