Allowed

Mohd. Saleem v. Khaja Bahauddin

Telangana HC10 Dec 2010CRP/3078/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition filed by a judgment-debtor against an order directing his arrest under CPC Section 151 reading with Order XXI Rule 37, the High Court upheld the lower court order. It permitted the petitioner to pay the balance decretal amount in instalments of Rs. 5,000 per month, with default reviving the arrest order.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is permitted to pay the entire balance of the decretal amount in instalments at the rate of Rs.5,000 per month; on default, the arrest order revives.

Mohd. Saleem Vs Khaja Bahauddin — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3078 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard both sides and at their request, the main Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal, at the stage of admission.

¶4

The petitioner who is the Judgment-debtor files this Revision under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 10.07.2008, passed in E.P.No.75 of 2008 on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 37 read with Section 151 C.P.C., whereby the petitioner was directed to be arrested in the process of adjudication which has been laid in pursuance of the decree obtained by the respondent for recovery of money.

¶5

The Court below after regular enquiry and having found that the petitioner has got sufficient means, but is avoiding to pay the decretal amount, ordered for arrest of the petitioner.

¶6

This Court, at the time of admission, granted interim stay of the interim order, subject to condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/- and the same is stated to have been deposited by the petitioner.

¶7

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of the record, and especially in view of the fact the petitioner is ready is to pay the balance decretal amount in instalments, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶8

Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to pay the entire balance of the decretal amount in instalments at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, commencing from January 2011 onwards, payable on or before 10^th of the same month. On such deposit, the respondent-decree-holder is permitted to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. It is also made clear that in case of default, the order of arrest

¶9

revives back.

¶10

Subject to the above directions and observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

________________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO

¶12

10^th December 2010 DR

Mohd. Saleem v. Khaja Bahauddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Saleem v. Khaja Bahauddin

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

L.Venkateswara Rao Vs Mandal Revenue Officer

Sabbineedi Sakkubai, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.(Mrs) a.O.Aruna Prafullakumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. R. Rajamani Vs Nayini babu Rao

Rachamalla Krishna Goud, Vs M/s. Sangeeta And Associates, Architects and Engineers

Rachamalla Krishna Goud, Vs M/s. Sangeeta And Associates, Architects and Engineers