Indusethia Finance Ltd v. Perumal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :01.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRP (NPD)No.1553 of 2016 and CMP.No.8416 of 2016
1. Indusethia Finance Limited, Rep. by its Proprietor, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079.
2. Pradip Kumar Sethia, No.13, Ramanan Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 079 ...
Petitioners ..Vs..
Perumal ...
Respondent Prayer:- Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2015 passed in E.A.No.1504 of 2015 in E.A.No.426 of 2014 in E.P.No.3961 of 2012 in O.S.No.121 of 2003 on the file of IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For Respondent : Mr.L.Dhamodaran
ORDER
This revision challenges the order of learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai passed in E.A.No.1504 of 2015 in E.A.No.426 of 2014 in E.P.No.3961 of 2012 in O.S.No.121 of 2003, dismissing the application filed under Section 94 (e) R/W 151 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to permit the petitioner to mark the voucher dated 23.12.2010 through P.W.1.
2. The petitioners are the Judgment debtors in O.S.No.121 of 2003. The petitioners suffered decree for payment of money in O.S.No.121 of 2003, on the file of learned Sub Court, Cheyyar on 02.01.2008. The respondent/decree holder put the decree in execution in E.P.No.3961 of 2012. The petitioner/Judgement debtor moved E.A.No.426 of 2014 under Order XXI, Rule (2-A) of Sub Rule (b) of Civil Procedure Code claiming that he had paid a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- to the respondent/decree holder on 22.10.2010, that such payment was evidenced by voucher executed by the respondent/decree holder and counter signed by P.W.1 in the case. While such application was pending, the petitioner moved further application in E.A.No.1504 of 2015, praying that he be permitted to mark voucher dated 23.12.2010 through P.W.1 in the case. Against the dismissal of E.A.No.1504 of
2015, the present revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr..L.Dhamodharan, learned counsel for respondents.
4. While learned counsel for petitioner affirms correctness of the voucher dated 23.12.2010, the learned counsel for respondent would contend otherwise. We need not go further. Even according to the petitioner, the voucher on which he placed reliance towards informing the satisfaction of the decree was of date 23.12.2010 and E.A.No.426 of 2014 under Order XXI, Rule (2-A) of Sub Rule (b) of Civil Procedure Code was filed only on 13.01.2014. Article 125 of the limitation Act prescribes a period of thirty days from the date of payment or adjustment is made for recording an adjustment or satisfaction of a decree. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases specifically excludes the benefit thereof to an application under Order XXI of the code of civil procedure.
5. Thus, in dismissing this revision this Court informs that E.A.No.426 of 2014 on the file of learned IX Assistant City Civil Judge,
C.T.SELVAM, J arr Chennai is not maintainable.
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 01.06.2016 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No arr To The IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
CRP (PD)No.1553 of 2016
01.06.2016
Crl.R.C.Nos.937 and 938 of 2007 03.07.2013