Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Petition filed by A.S. Jahangir (petitioner) challenging the order dated 30.01.2026 in EA No.3/2025 in EP No.688/2020 passed by the XXVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent, M/s. Operating Lease and Hire Purchase Company Limited, had obtained an ex-parte decree in CS No.874/2001 (later renumbered as OS No.83/2017) for recovery of Rs.29,79,848.86p. The petitioner's applications to set aside the ex-parte decree were dismissed, and the respondent filed EP No.688/2020 for execution. The petitioner filed EA No.3/2025 under Order 21 Rule 23 CPC seeking dismissal of the EP, primarily on the ground of non-compliance with Order 21 Rule 11[A] CPC regarding the affidavit of assets. The executing court dismissed the EA, leading to the present revision. The High Court upheld the executing court's order, finding that the EP was filed with proper compliance and that the objections were without merit. The court also noted that the issue of limitation was not raised in the EA and that the decree was within the limitation period under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Execution of Decree - Order 21 Rule 11[A] CPC - Affidavit of Assets - The court held that the execution petition was filed with a proper affidavit of assets and there was no procedural non-compliance. The executing court correctly dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 23 CPC. (Paras 4-5)
B) Civil Procedure Code - Execution of Decree - Limitation - The court noted that the issue of limitation was not raised in the EA and the decree was executable within 12 years under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (Para 5)
C) Civil Procedure Code - Execution of Decree - Order 21 Rule 23 CPC - Dismissal of Execution Petition - The court held that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and the objections raised by the petitioner were without merit. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the execution petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of Order 21 Rule 11[A] CPC and on the ground of limitation.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Order 21 Rule 11[A] CPC
- Order 21 Rule 23 CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- Limitation Act
- 1963
Case Details
CRP No.1183 of 2026 and CMP No.6000 of 2026
Mr. C.B. Muralikrishnan for petitioner, Mr. V.P. Raman for R1
M/s. Operating Lease and Hire Purchase Company Limited, M/s. Balaji Garment Processing
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Petition challenging dismissal of application under Order 21 Rule 23 CPC seeking dismissal of execution petition.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of order dated 30.01.2026 in EA No.3/2025 in EP No.688/2020 and dismissal of the execution petition.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged procedural non-compliance of Order 21 Rule 11[A] CPC in execution petition and that the decree was barred by limitation.
Previous Decisions
Ex-parte decree dated 23.06.2009 in CS No.874/2001 (later OS No.83/2017); dismissal of IA No.7606/2017 for condonation of delay; dismissal of CRP No.680/2021 on 14.07.2022; dismissal of EA No.2/2023 on 21.02.2023; CRP No.1455/2023 challenging dismissal of EA No.2/2023.
Issues
Whether the execution petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of Order 21 Rule 11[A] CPC?
Whether the execution petition is barred by limitation?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondent failed to file proper affidavit of assets/means as required under Order 21 Rule 11[A] CPC, and that execution proceedings affecting personal liberty must strictly comply with statutory safeguards.
Petitioner also argued that the issue of limitation is jurisdictional and can be raised in execution proceedings.
Respondent contended that the execution petition was filed with proper compliance and within limitation.
Ratio Decidendi
The executing court cannot go behind the decree and the objections raised by the petitioner regarding non-compliance of Order 21 Rule 11[A] CPC and limitation were without merit. The execution petition was filed with proper affidavit of assets and within the limitation period under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Judgment Excerpts
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.01.2026 in EA.No.3/2025 in EP.No.688/2020, on the file of the learned XXVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing the petitioner's petition filed under Order 21 Rule 23 of CPC, seeking the dismissal of the Execution Petition filed by the respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executing Court failed to note that there was procedural non-compliance of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 11[A] of CPC, inasmuch as the respondent failed to file proper affidavit of assets/means.
Procedural History
The respondent filed CS No.874/2001 for money recovery; ex-parte decree on 23.06.2009; suit transferred to City Civil Court as OS No.83/2017; petitioner's IA for setting aside ex-parte decree dismissed; CRP No.680/2021 dismissed on 14.07.2022; respondent filed EP No.688/2020 on 20.01.2020; petitioner filed EA No.2/2023 under Order 47 CPC dismissed on 21.02.2023; CRP No.1455/2023 filed; petitioner filed EA No.3/2025 under Order 21 Rule 23 CPC dismissed on 30.01.2026; present CRP filed.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 115, Order 21 Rule 11[A], Order 21 Rule 23, Order 47
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 136
