C.M.A. No. 2572 of 2016 and C.M.P. No. 18435 of 2016. Case: The District Revenue Officer, The Competent Authority at Kancheepuram Vs U. Buvaneswari and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberC.M.A. No. 2572 of 2016 and C.M.P. No. 18435 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Jayashree, Government Advocate (CS) and For Respondents: P. Jagadeesan for K. Jothisivam, Advs.
JudgesPushpa Sathyanarayana, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XVIII Rule 17; Section 151; Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 - Section 5
Judgement DateMarch 21, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)


Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

  1. The appellant, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 [in short 'the Act'] in dismissing the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

  2. The facts of the case is as follows:

    "(a) Based on the complaint of one Munusamy, a case was registered in Crime No. 6 of 2001 under Section of 5 of T.N.P.I.D. Act, against two persons, who were running the Financial Establishment by name "Sri Devi Finance" at Chingleput. During investigation, it was found that the first respondent's husband, by name, Umapathi Sivam was also a partner in the said financial establishment and that they have jointly defaulted a sum of Rs. 14,91,346/- from 30 depositors in 64 deposits. However, the original accused were absconding from the inception of the case and since their whereabouts were not known, the case was split up against them and the first respondent's husband herein and orders were passed declaring the absconding accused as Proclaimed Offenders. The case is still pending before the Court below. Pending trial, the property of Umapathi Sivam was attached vide G.O. Ms. No. 1023, Home (Courts IIA) Department dated 25.10.2006. Whereas in the split up case in C.C. No. 15 of 2002 against Umapathi Sivam, the Court below had acquitted him on 21.07.2011 on the ground that the alleged offence was not proved against him beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the first respondent herein filed an application in O.A. No. 4 of 2015 seeking to raise the attachment order passed. Pending the said application, the appellant herein, who is arrayed as R2, had filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall RW2 and to file additional proof affidavit and to mark certain documents.

    (b) The first respondent herein filed a counter stating that the documents sought to be marked are not relevant for deciding the issue in the main application. She had further stated that the evidence on both sides are over and that the matter was posted for further evidence on her side. At that stage, the appellant had filed the above application only for dragging on the issue without valid grounds.

    (c) The court below, after hearing both sides, had dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed."

  3. Heard both...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT