A single judge ordered the dismissal of a Civil Revision Petition arising from an execution application. The High Court held that the lower court's decision to allow an inquiry into alleged violation of a decree was correct and barred no interference.
No specific relief granted as the petition was dismissed at admission stage.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1546 of 2011 ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the relevant material papers on record.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 18.03.2011, passed by IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in E.P.No.44 of 2010 in O.S.No.266 of 1990.
The said E.P. was filed under Order XXI Rule 32(1) and (5) C.P.C. seeking to arrest the judgmentdebtor and attach his properties and also permission to remove the possible obstructions and interference caused by the judgment-debtor in spite of the decree of injunction dated 28.08.1996 passed by the Court in said O.S. in favour of the decree-holder.
Admittedly, the suit filed by the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein was decreed in his favour, which attained finality on Second Appeal No.226 of 2001, filed by the plaintiff, being allowed by this Court. Subsequently, the present E.P. was filed by the decree-holder alleging violation of the said decree passed in his favour in the said suit. The Court below having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, overruled the objections raised by the judgment-debtor and ordered for making regular inquiry into the allegations of disobedience of the decree, etc.,
A perusal of the record clearly discloses that the decree passed in favour of the decree-holder attained finality in the Second Appeal. The decree-
holder has filed the said application alleging disobedience of the said decree by the judgmentdebtor and sought to arrest him for the same. The objections raised by the judgment-debtor that the decree-holder did not specify the nature of violation of decree and that, he has filed a review petition in the Second Appeal before this Court are rightly not acceded to by the Court below. The Court below has rightly adjudicated the matter and passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
15th July 2011 DR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC allowing inquiry into decree disobedience warrants interference in revision.
Whether the adjudication of objections raised by the judgment-debtor was correct.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Judgment Debtor
Decree Holder
GHULAM MOHAMMED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
