← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/1903/2026disposed of

The Managing Director v. S.Govindarajan

2026-04-02Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.Thamilselvi5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 8556 OF 2026 The Managing Director SIPCOT, 19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. S.Govindarajan S/o. Sankara Devan, No.9/5, KVK Samy St, Periyar Nagar, Kamaraj Nagar, Avadi, Chennai 71.

2. The Special Tahsildar SIPCOT Unit, Sriperumbudur.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Sec.115 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the impugned Order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, in E.P. No. 700 of 2025 in L.A.O.P. No. 672 of 2004, directing the issuance of an attachment warrant against the Petitioner. For Petitioner(s):

Ms. R.Revathi

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order of attachment passed in E.P.No. 700 of 2025 in LAOP No.672 of 2004 by the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Revision Petitioner/Judgment Debtor preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2.Considering the relief claimed challenging the order of attachment passed by the Executing Court, notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 3.Before the Executing Court, the respondent, as a decree holder, had filed an application to claim the award amount. When the amount was not paid, the Executing Court has ordered for attachment. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 4.The learned counsel for revision petitioner argues that the respondent/decree holder is not a real owner of the property. So, he is not entitled to claim the award amount and by giving wrong particulars, he attempted to get the award amount. Hence, he raised objections and submitted that still he is having valid defence to prove his case. Therefore, he has sought to set aside the attachment order passed by the Executing Court.

5. On perusal of records, it reveals that the petition in LAOP No. 672 of 2004 was filed by the respondent/decree holder against the Special Tahsildar, SIPCOT, Irungattukottai and the Chairman and Managing Director of SIPCOT, Chennai, in which the award was passed in his favour on 08.06.2006. Against which, the appeal suits were filed by the Special Tahsildar, SIPCOT in A.S.Nos.212 to 264 of 2012 and the same were also disposed of by this court on 21.03.2012, in which this revision petitioner was shown as one of the respondent. Therefore, the award passed against this revision petitioner was already confirmed in the appeal proceedings also. But, now the revision petitioner/judgment debtor contended that the respondent/decree holder is not real owner of property. But, no such plea was raised at the earlier occasion. So, at this stage, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor has no right to raise such objections and as on date, the award amount was not deposited. Therefore, the Executing Court has rightly passed the order for attachment.

6. Considering the fact that the award passed in LAOP No.672 of 2004 was confirmed in the appeal proceedings, at that stage, now the revision petitioner/judgment debtor raised all those objections as such is not sustainable one. Eight weeks time is granted to the revision petitioner/judgment debtor to pay the entire amount before the Executing Court from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, the order of attachment is ordered to be stayed. If any deviation, the Executing Court is directed to proceed with the matter in the

manner known to law. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 02-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RPP To The VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

RPP AND CMP NO. 8556 OF 2026 02-04-2026