M/S. Rajshree Laminates Limited. v. M/S. Industrial Venture Capital Limited
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN C.R.P.(PD).No.2483 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.18737 of 2021 1.M/s.Rajshree Laminates Ltd.
Rep. by its Director J.Prakash Mehta 159, Ponnurangam Road (East) R.S.Puram, Coimbatore - 641 002.
2.Prakash J Mehta 3.Dinesh Mehta .. Petitioners Vs.
M/s.Industrial Venture Capital Limited Rep by its Law Officer A.Hema Jothi 112, Vairama, Thyagaraya Road T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 001.
.. Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 18.08.2021 in E.P.No.44 of 2016 in C.S.No.341 of 2001 passed by the learned V 1/5
Additional District Judge, Coimbatore and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.R.Kalyani ******
O R D E R
Challenge in this Revision is to the order of the Executing Court dismissing the application seeking leave to file additional counter statement in the execution petition.
2. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground of delay and on the ground that this Court had already directed the execution proceedings to be disposed of within a time frame. The execution Court also saw this application as an attempt to delay the execution proceedings.
3. Mr.S.R.Kalyani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the monies due under the decree have been paid and the same has been recognised in the criminal appeal that arose out of the 2/5
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and all that the petitioner wanted to place before the Court was factum of such payment by way of additional counter statement.
4. I am afraid that such a contention is not open to the judgment debtor/ the petitioner. Order XXI Rule 2 Sub-Rule (3) prohibits the execution Court from recognising payments that have not been certified under Sub-Rule (2) or Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Admittedly the payment that is claimed to have been made has not been certified as required under Sub-Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, even if the counter statement is to be accepted, the Court cannot look into that or recognise the payment.
6. Hence, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order of the 3/5
learned trial Judge. The Revision therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.11.2021 dsa Index : No Internet : Yes Speaking order To The V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. 4/5
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa 23.11.2021 5/5