Murugaiyan. Vs. Vanchilingam.

Murugaiyan. vs Vanchilingam.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 31, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/927948

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/927948
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria, J.
Decided On: Jul 31, 2012
Case Number: C.R.P.(NPD).No.2734 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Articles 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murugaiyan.

Advocate Mr.S.T.P.Kuilmozhi. Adv

Respondent

Vanchilingam.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Articles 227

Excerpt

civil revision petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india as against the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by the learned district munsif, mannargudi in e.a.no.311 of 2010 in e.p.no.19 of 2009 in o.s.no.222 of 2007.order1. animadverting upon the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by the learned district munsif, mannargudi in e.a.no.311 of 2010 in e.p.no.19 of 2009 in o.s.no.222 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that the lower court simply rejected the prayer of the judgment debtor to recall the order attaching his salary, even though the judgment debtor was paying regularly a sum of rs.1,000/- every month.3. perused the order, which would clearly exemplify that the total decree amount was rs.47,711.50 ps and the judgment debtor was directed to pay rs.3,500/- every month; but he was paying only a sum of rs.1,000/- every month. whereupon, attachment of salary was ordered. thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for recalling the order of attachment and to permit him to pay the sum of rs.1,000/- every month.4. the lower court considering the past conduct of the judgment debtor refused to recall the warrant. unless there is any perversity or illegality in it, the question of invoking article 227 of the constitution of india would not arise.5. accordingly, i find no merit in this civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. however, there shall be no order as to costs. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Full Judgment

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi in E.A.No.311 of 2010 in E.P.No.19 of 2009 in O.S.No.222 of 2007.

ORDER

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi in E.A.No.311 of 2010 in E.P.No.19 of 2009 in O.S.No.222 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that the lower court simply rejected the prayer of the judgment debtor to recall the order attaching his salary, even though the judgment debtor was paying regularly a sum of Rs.1,000/- every month.

3. Perused the order, which would clearly exemplify that the total decree amount was Rs.47,711.50 ps and the judgment debtor was directed to pay Rs.3,500/- every month; but he was paying only a sum of Rs.1,000/- every month. Whereupon, attachment of salary was ordered. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for recalling the order of attachment and to permit him to pay the sum of Rs.1,000/- every month.

4. The lower court considering the past conduct of the judgment debtor refused to recall the warrant. Unless there is any perversity or illegality in it, the question of invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not arise.

5. Accordingly, I find no merit in this civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties Murugaiyan. vs Vanchilingam. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge G.Rajasuria, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Articles 227