R KANNIYAPPAN Vs. KASTHURI BAI BENEFIT FUND LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 09.04.2010 passed in E.A.SR.No.1770 of 2010 in EP No.153 of 2008 in OS No.114 of 2003 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder would set forth and put forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: The respondent is a registered Benefit Fund having the status of a Company and it is lending money for commercial purposes and it is also paying sufficient interest to the depositors and thereby getting on with their finance business. If it could not recover proper rate of interest from the loanees concerned, then it would not be able to honour its commitment to its depositors. The prayer in the application filed under Section 47 of CPC is totally untenable. If at all the revision petitioner had felt that he was aggrieved by the judgment passed, he ought to have preferred appeal or filed review, but without doing so he simply filed an application under Section 47 of CPC, which was correctly and appropriately returned at the threshold itself by the Court warranting no interference by this Court in the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.