Partly allowed

Mallipudi Durga Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Udaya Bhaskara v. Gatti Subbarao

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024CRP/3548/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order in execution proceedings. The court rejected the challenge to the trial court's enforcement of a summary means inquiry but granted a conditional stay on execution proceedings for nine months if the petitioner pays the decretal amount.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of. The order enforcing the summary means inquiry was upheld. However, all proceedings in the execution petition were stayed conditionally for nine months.

Mallipudi Durga Veera Venkata Satyanarayana… — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3548 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mallipudi Durga Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Udaya Bhaskara Rao, S/o.Subbarao, Hindu, Aged 55 years, Madiki Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶9

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/J.DR.

¶10

AND

¶11

Gatti Subbarao, S/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 50 year,Landlord, Burrilanka, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTPETITIONER/D.HR.

¶13

Petition under 115 of C.P.C. against the Order in E.P.No.112 of 2015 in O.S.No.507 of 2010 dated 31-03-2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ramachandrapu ram, •

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 4661 OF 2017}

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be

¶16

in E.P.No. 112 of 2015 in O.S.No. pleased to stay all further proceedings in of the Senior Civil Judge, the file of the Court 507 of 2010 on Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

¶17

:SR1 T V JAGGI REDDY / >■r Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent.

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

APHC010134142017.

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶21

[3460]

¶22

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶25

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3548/2017 f

¶26

Between:

¶27

Mallipudi Durga Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Udaya Bhaskara

...PETITIONER

AND

Gatti Subbarao

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

1.T V JAGGI REDDY

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶35

¶36

The Court made the following: «

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

The present Revision is filed against the Order dated 31.03.2017 in E.P.No.112 of 2015 in O.S.No.507 of 2010 passed by^the Senior^Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

¶39

The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The petitioner/plaintiff^filed the suit for recovery of money. As the amount was not recovered,^E.Pwasfiled seeking arrest of the petitioner. The trial Court,^{afterenquiry,foundthatthe} petitioner was having sufficient means. Hence, allowed^{theE.P.Questioning} the same, the present C.R.P is filed.

¶40

¶41

02.08.2017, as follows; 3 This Court passed an interim order on

¶42

’I -»»*»

¶43

'Notice before admission, Learned counsel for the petitioner is also out personal notice to the permitted to take respondent by RPAD and file proof of service. There shall be interim stay as prayed for, on 1/4^^ of the decreetal condition of petitioner paying amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from today, the above said In case the petitioner fails to pay amount, the stay granted shall stand vacated automatically. Post after eight (8) weeks.

¶44

counsel for the petitioner that he is not 4. It is subrnitted by the learned order has been complied with or not. sure whether the interim detailed order establishing the means 5. The trial Court had passed a irv is of a summary nature. This .being a fact finding even though the enquiry interfere with the order of the aspect, this Court does not find any reason to of the petitioner. Further, there is no trial Court on the aspect of the means from the petitioner as what he has^{donewiththesuitamount} explanation a position to presume that taken from the plaintiff. The Court would not be in the said amount is expended untii the judgment debtor say so.

¶45

the ends of justice 6. in view of the conditional order passed by this Court, would be met if the petitioner is granted nine (9) months time from today to of the E.P. In default, the trial balance amount to the full satisfaction pay the dated 31.03.2017 for arrest of the petitioner Court can proceed with the order without further reference to this Court.

¶46

With the above directions and observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs, As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶47

Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

¶52

One CC to SRI. T V JAGGI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

Three C.D.Copies

¶54

¶55

¶56

HIGH COURT DATED:05/09/2024

¶57

ORDER

¶58

CRP.No.3548 of 2017

¶59

OT
o
o 9 nCT 20'/^ Co
★ ★

¶60

DISPOSING THE CRP

Mallipudi Durga Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Udaya Bhaskara v. Gatti Subbarao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallipudi Durga Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Udaya Bhaskara v. Gatti Subbarao

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

Bokka Krishna Murthy, Vs Bokka Srinivasa Rao

Lalitha Kumar Vs P.Lakshmi Devi

Salla Nagabhushanam Vs Kumari Pushpalatha

Vadde Venkateswarlu, Vs Gandam Rama Subba Reddy

S. Rahamthulla Waseem Vs G. Saleem Basha

B Krishnama Naidu Vs B Prabhavathi