Dismissed

Chintalapato Subramanya Sarma v. Jettiboina Srinviasa Rao

Telangana HC17 Jun 2011CRP/1506/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an execution petition under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 CPC. The lower court rejected the prayer for arrest due to lack of material showing the judgment debtor had sufficient means. The revision was rejected as non-interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed; the petitioner-decree holder is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies for realization. No costs.

Chintalapato Subramanya Sarma Vs Jettiboina… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.1506 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.09.2010, passed in E.P.No.217 of 2010 in O.S.No.648 of 2009 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein the petition filed under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 CPC seeking to order arrest of the judgment debtor and send him to civil prison for realisation of the decretal amount, was dismissed.

¶4

2. The petitioner-decree holder obtained a decree against the respondent-judgment holder for a sum of Rs.21,347/- in O.S.No.648 of 2009 filed for recovery of money. Stating that the respondent having sufficient means is evading discharge of the decretal amount, the petitioner filed E.P.No.217 of 2010 seeking his arrest and to send him to civil prison for realization of the decretal amount. The Court below dismissed the said E.P. holding that the decree holder has not placed sufficient material with regard to the income and the properties of the judgment debtor. Aggrieved by the same, the decree holder filed the present revision.

¶5

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶6

4. The judgment debtor in his counter filed before the executing Court pleaded that he is working as an auto driver and his earnings are not sufficient even to meet his family expenses. He prays to grant easy instalments at the rate of Rs.500/-per month.

¶7

5. During the course of enquiry before the executing Court, the petitioner was examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined another witness as P.W.2, but the petitioner did not place any document to show that the judgment debtor has sufficient means to discharge the decretal amount. For ordering arrest of the judgment debtor, the petitioner must satisfy the Court about evading attitude of the judgment debtor in discharging the decretal amount. Mere ground of absence of such material, the judgment debtor cannot be absolved from liability to discharge the decretal amount. Since the order of dismissal by the executing Court was after conducting enquiry, this Court cannot interfere with the same.

¶8

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner-decree holder is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law, for realisation of the decretal amount. No costs.

¶9

__________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

¶10

Date:17.06.2011. sj

Chintalapato Subramanya Sarma v. Jettiboina Srinviasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintalapato Subramanya Sarma v. Jettiboina Srinviasa Rao

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

Annam Janaki Durga Bhavani Vs Nutheti Venkata Krishna

Suphalitha Chit Fund (P) Ltd., Vs M/s. Raja Agencies, Rep. by its Partner B. Vishnu

Syed Kaleel-Ur-Rehman Vs J. Srinivas Reddy

Sharukh Mistry Vs Raheemunnisa Begum

Vidudala Venkata Tata Satya Prasad, Vs Smt. Vadigineni Madhu Sri

Pavitravati Green Fields Private Limited Vs M/s.Satyam Computer Services Limited