Madras High CourtA/8244/2019dismissed

M/S.Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd, v. St.Alfred Education Trust

2020-02-05Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY A.No.8244 of 2019 IN E.P.No.202 of 2018 M/s.KONE ELEVATOR INDIA PVT LTD Rep by its Manager- Legal, Mr. U.Barath Kumar, KRD Gee Gee Crystal, No.89-92, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai.

..Applicant/Decree Holder -vsST. ALFRED EDUCATION TRUST No.22, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008, Rep by its Trustee, Mr. D.John Alfred, Also At AA Matriculation School, Sponsored by St. Alfred Educational Trust, No.42/1, Srinivasa Nagar, Koyambedu, Chennai ..Respondent/Defendant This application praying that this Hon'ble court be pleased to set aside the order of the Master dated 17/10/2019 passed in A.No.4988 of 2019 in E.P.No.202 of This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order: This application is filed to set aside the order of the Master dated 17.10.2019 in A.No.4988 of 2019 in E.P.No.202 of 2018. I heard the learned counsel for the applicant/decree holder and the learned counsel for the respondent/judgment debtor. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the decree in C.S.No.626 of 2006 is in force as on date and the decree has neither been set https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aside nor stayed by an appellate court. Consequently, he

submitted that the judgment debtor has no basis to oppose the execution proceedings.

2. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the judgment debtor submitted that the order dated 27.02.2019 in E.P.No.202 of 2018 was passed exparte and that the judgment debtor did not receive notice on account of a change in the address of the judgment debtor. Therefore, he submitted that this application is liable to be rejected.

3. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and also examined the impugned order of the Master. I find that the learned Master has recorded that the plaintiff is fully secured because the warrant of attachment was executed and the schedule property is under the attachment of the Court. After recording that the plaintiff is fully secured, the learned Master allowed the application so as to provide an opportunity to the judgment debtor to participate in the execution proceedings. I do not see any infirmity in the said order especially because the decree holder is protected by the order of attachment. Consequently, I do not propose to interfere with the order of the learned Master. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. It is made clear that this order will not in any manner restrain the decree holder from prosecuting the execution proceedings.

Sd/-S.K.R.J.

05.02.2020 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2020.

S.U./14.02.2020 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/