1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.372 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Sundarapandian .. Petitioner Vs. Vijayakumar .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 06.04.2010 passed in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 in Original Suit No.188 of 2002 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Senthil ORDER The impugned order dated 06.04.2010 passed in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 in Original Suit No.188 of 2002 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.188 of 2002 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a money decree, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. In Original Suit No.188 of 2002, an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006. In Execution Petition No.177 of 2006, the impugned order has been passed on 06.04.2010. Against the order passed in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 in Original Suit No.188 of 2002, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that on 09.03.2001, the revision petitioner has executed a release deed in favour of his minor son and now he is not having sufficient wherewithal to pay the amount mentioned in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 and the Court below without considering the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner has erroneously passed the order of arrest in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 and therefore the order of arrest passed in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner/ decree holder has contended that on 29.06.2000, the revision petitioner has received the amount mentioned in the suit pronote and he failed to discharge the same and under the said circumstances Original Suit No.188 of 2002 has been filed, wherein an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 and in order to defeat the lawful claim of the respondent/petitioner/ decree holder, the release deed dated 09.03.2011 has been executed by the revision petitioner and the Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly passed the impugned order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of arrest and therefore the order of arrest passed by the Court below is not liable to be set aside. 5. It is an admitted fact that Original Suit No.188 of 2002 has been instituted for getting a money decree on the basis of the pronote alleged to have been executed by the revision petitioner/defendant. In Original Suit No.188 of 2002, an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006. Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 has been filed so as to get an order of arrest. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has passed the impugned order of arrest on 06.04.2010. 6. The only defence taken on the side of the revision petitioner is that on 09.03.2001, the revision petitioner has executed a release deed in favour of his minor son and now he is not having any immovable property and under the said circumstances the Court can very well come to a conclusion that he is not having sufficient means to pay the amount mentioned in E.P.No.177 of 2006. 7. As pointed out earlier, the revision petitioner has received the amount mentioned in the suit pronote on 29.06.2000. The alleged release deed has come into existence on 09.03.2001. Therefore it goes without saying that only after borrowing the amount mentioned in the suit pronote from the respondent, the revision petitioner with a view to defeat the lawful claim of the respondent, has executed the release deed dated 09.03.2001. Since the release deed dated 09.03.2001 has been executed only with a view to defraud the creditor of the revision petitioner, the Court cannot give much adherence to the release deed alleged to have been executed by him on 09.03.2001. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly passed the impugned order of arrest in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 in Original Suit No.188 of 2002. 8. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 in Original Suit No.188 of 2002 by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the impugned order passed in Execution Petition No.177 of 2006 in Original Suit No.188 of 2002 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi. C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.372 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 28.02.2011 smn/RJ/9.3.11 2p/2c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/