Allowed

D Munirama Reddy v. B Vemanarayana

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Dec 2023CRP/2329/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition against an execution order directing arrest. The Executing Court ordered arrest under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC for recovering a decretal amount without adducing evidence of the petitioner's ability to pay. The High Court set aside the order and remanded for a proper enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; Order of the Executing Court dated 05.07.2023 set aside; Matter remanded for proper enquiry into petitioner's capacity to pay.

D Munirama Reddy Vs B Vemanarayana — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

SATURDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2329 of 2023

¶7

Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Order dated 05.07.2023 made in E.P.No.80 of 2021 in O.S.No.605 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cumJudicial First Class Magistrate Tiruoati Chittoor District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

D Munirami Reddy, S/o D. Raja Reddy, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Pensioner Residing at A.K.Colony, Pathapeta, Chandragiri Village and Mandal, Tirupati District (Erstwhile Chittoor District).

¶10

...Revision Petitioner/Respondent/JDR

¶11

AND

¶12

B Vernanarayana, S/o B. Ramanna, Aged about 60 years,^Occ:Business Residing at D.No. 13-8-107, Tataiahgunta, Tirupati Town, Tirupati District (Erstwhile Chittoor District).

¶13

...Respondent/ Petitioner/D.Hr

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.80 of 2021 in O.S.No.605 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Judicial First Class Magistrate Tirupati, Chittoor District pending disposal of the main C.R.P.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶17

: Sri O Udaya Kumar

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Harinath Reddy Soma

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶21

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2329 of 2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.605 of 2018 against the petitioner herein before the Principal^Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for recovery of money. This suit was decreed by an order dated 22.09.2020 and an amount of Rs.1,48,600/was directed to be repaid to the respondent along with interest @ 6% p.a. Thereafter, E.P.No.80 of 2021 was filed for execution of the said decree. The respondent sought arrest of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, despite having means to pay, is refusing to pay the money. The petitioner took the plea that he was living on his pension amount and eking out livelihood,^and depending on the income of his wife who was undertaking tailoring works.

¶24

The Executing Court after considering evidence on hand, had allowed the petition and directed the arrest of the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 38 of C.P.C for realization of the decretal amount. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order dated 05.07.2023 had approached this Court, by way of the present revision.

¶25

)

¶26

It is the contention of the petitioner that no evidence of any nature has been adduced by the respondent to

¶27

¶28

demonstrate the ability of the petitioner to pay the decretal amount or to show that the petitioner has any income from which such decretal amount could be satisfied. 4. A perusal of the order shows that no such evidence has been adduced before the Executing Court. However,^itwould have been appropriate for the Executing Court to give^further opportunity to the respondent to demonstrate the ability^ofthe petitioner to pay the decretal amount and it would be in the fairness of things and in the interest of justice to permit the respondent to have a second opportunity to demonstrate the capacity of the petitioner to pay the decretal amount.

¶29

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the Executing Court dated^05.07.2023 and remanding the matter back to the Executing Court for a proper enquiry into the matter as to the capacity of the petitioner to pay the decretal amount. There shall^benoorderas to costs.

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

SD/- M. SRINIVAS \ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

SECTION OFFICER

¶34

To 1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial First^{ClassMagistrate,} Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶35

One CC to Sri O Udaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶36

One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC]

¶37

THREE CD Copies TK AL P tX ’vOLA-e-

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/12/2023

ORDER

CRP.No.2329 of 2023

y-
'1- 3 0 APP 202^ V'. /.
^ .. {-.arreni is'e.^K.on
■V..

¶43

C top^'er)
pAU
2^'/oz-/^

¶44

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

D Munirama Reddy v. B Vemanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Munirama Reddy v. B Vemanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasari Ramakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yerpedu Raja Reddy, Vs Yerpedu Gram Panchayat

B. Sreenivasulu, Vs M. Reddemma

G Venkataramana Vs Sri.Shashi Bhushan Kumar

V T Bhaskara Rao Vs Madireddy Pratap

C Mamatha Vs K Parvathamma