Dismissed

Talari Butchanna v. Syndicate Bank

Telangana HC19 Mar 2010CRP/6121/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice K.C. Bhanu addressed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an arrest warrant issued in execution of a decree. Upon finding the deposit by petitioners and their employment status, the court granted a two-month extension for the remaining payment and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Two months time granted to pay remaining decretal amount, interest, and costs; Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

Talari Butchanna Vs Syndicate Bank — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6121 OF 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Talari Butchanna and others

..... PETITIOERS

AND

Syndicate Bank

....RESPONDENT

The Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶14

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6121 OF 2009

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 04.12.2009, in E.P.No.118 of 2010 in PLAC.No.935 of 2008 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the trial Court issued warrant of arrest to the petitioners, when they failed to pay the decretal amount.

¶17

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that in pursuance

¶18

of the direction given by this Court, an amount of Rs.58,000/- has been deposited in the Court, which has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶19

3. When there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. Under Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Judgment debtor can be arrested in execution of warrant, provided he has means to pay that amount and is willfully avoiding to pay that amount. Categorical finding has been recorded by the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the petitioners/judgment debtors have means to pay that amount, but still they are avoiding to pay that amount. Therefore, the finding given by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse and contrary to law. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. But, however, considering the fact that in pursuance of the direction given by this Court, the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.58,000/-; and that they are employees, a lenient view can be taken so that they can pay the entire decretal amount.

¶20

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if two months’ time is granted, the petitioners will pay the remaining decretal amount. Hence, two months’ time is granted to pay the remaining decretal amount, together with costs and interest, failing which the order under challenge shall be given effect to. It is needless to mention that the respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners.

¶21

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

_______________ K.C. BHANU, J

¶23

March 19, 2010

¶24

Talari Butchanna v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talari Butchanna v. Syndicate Bank

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

D. Seetharamamma Vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Trilok Chand Sobati Vs Ali Asgar

B. Sunanda Lakshi, Vs B. shyam Sundar

Eeramalla Bal Raj Vs Nallanagula Sunanda

Jakkula Ramulu Vs Nookala Chandraiah

G.Rajya Lakshmi and 2 Others Vs G.M. S.C.Railway and 2 Others