RANGA NATHAN Vs. S KUPPURAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The judgment- debtor, aggrieved against the order of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. dated 2.4.1993 passed in R.E.P. No. 483 of 1990 in O.S. No. 1764 of 1981, has filed the above revision petition. The respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 1764 of 1981 for recovery of money given to the petitioner under a promissory note. The Trial Court passed a decree on 23.10.1987. Admittedly, the said decree has become final. On the basis of the decree, the respondent filed Execution Petition in R.E.P. No. 483 of 1990 to execute the decree. Even in the execution proceedings, the petitioner herein was served only by affixture. Though the Court granted time for filing counter, it was not filed and when the petition was called on 27.6.1991 neither his counsel nor the petitioner herein did not appear before the Court and so attachment was ordered. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed a counter statement stating that he is entitled to the relief under Act 13 of 1980. It is relevant to mention here that even in the counter no objection was raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with the executing proceedings. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and permitted the respondent to proceed with the execution proceedings. Aggrieved against that order, the petitioner has filed the above revision petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not canvassed any argument on merits. He has submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit against the debtor for the recovery of any amount on such debt. The learned counsel relied on Section 4(l)(b) of the Act 13 of 1980 and Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure in support of his submission. Section 4(1)(b) reads as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel has submitted that in all the decisions dealing with the scope of Section 4(l)(b) of the Act 13of 1980, it has been decided that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit only on the basis that no machinery has been provided under the rules to entertain the application of the judgment debtors. This cannot be correct in view of the decision reported in Perumal v. Chinna Kupanna (Bounder (supra), in which, as quoted earlier, the learned Judge has decided the scope of Section 4(l)(b) of the Act and held that the Civil Court can entertain the suit.