A judgment debtor challenged the execution court's order to proceed further with enquiry in a money decree execution, contending her liability was limited to inherited estate and her memo went unconsidered. The High Court found no illegality since she filed no formal objections and dismissed the revision petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3346 OF 2023
Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2022 in E.P.No.21 of 2022 in O.S.No.561 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada,EastGodavariDistrict.
Between:
Rayali Prathuyusha, D/o RVSSVS Hanuman, Aged 28 years,R/oD. No. 3- 19/4, Sivalayama Street, Gandredu, Pedapudi, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District.
...Petitioner/Defendant No.2
AND
.. .Respondent/Plaintiff
...Respondent/Defendant No.1
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 of CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.21 of 2022 on thefile of Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.S. MANIDHAR PINGALI
Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following Order:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3346 OF 2023
ORDER:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusedthe material on record.
- The impugned order is only to proceed for further enquiry in execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.561 of2018onthe application/objection of the D.Hr. As per the impugned order, notice was issued to the Judgment Debtors (J.Drs.). However,
s"/
2
no relief was sought against the J.Dr.No.l (respondentNo.l herein). The J.Dr.No.2 (petitioner) did not file any objection. In the absence of any objections, the Court has decided to proceed further for enquiry. At present there appears to beno valid grievance of the petitioner if the Court is proceedingfurtherfor enquiry in execution of the decree passed in the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed memo on 14.09.2022 and inter-alia submitted that the J.Dr.No.2/petitioner has no personal liability. Her liability was limited only to the extent of the estate of the deceased inherited/succeeded, but the said memo was not considered by the learned Execution Court in passing the impugned order. So far as, this aspect, the non considerationof the memo on the merit is concerned under the impugnedorder the Court is only proceeding to make further enquiry. In the course of such enquiry the petitioner’s objections on merits may require consideration within the legal framework.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitsthat after filing of this Civil Revision Petition, orderofattachment has been passed by the Court for the salaiy account of the petitioner (J.Dr.No.2). The present petition is confined to the impugned order. Any such order passed during pendencyofthis petition, is neither before this Court nor is the subjectmatterof
3
1 1
this petition. So far as the present petition is concerned it has got no substance. The petitioner does not dispute that the objection was not filed against the objection of the D.Hr upon which the Court has decided to proceed further for enquiry. It could not be shown as to how and why execution petitionisnot maintainable or the further enquiry should not be made by the Court in execution of the decree. The plea as raisedinthememo is on merits. It cannot be said, at this stage, basedthereonthat no further enquiry should be made.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending, shall also stand closed.
SDI- B CHITTI JOSEPH
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To, 1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.(with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P.atAmaravathi. 4. Three CD Copies
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:09/01/2024
ORDER
CRP.No.3346 of 2023
DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the execution court's order to proceed with further enquiry under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC, absent objections by the judgment debtor, was illegal.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rayali Prathuyusha
Padala Ramareddy
Ryali Bala Tripura Sundari
Ravi Nath Tilhari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
