Remanded

Thammana Sayasi Setti v. Sheif Begum Kumari

Telangana HC3 Dec 2011CRP/5886/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition regarding the dismissal of an execution petition. It held that the decree-holder must be given an opportunity to prove identity before attaching the judgment-debtor's salary.

What did the court decide?

Orders in E.P.No.256 of 2005 set aside and case remitted to Execution Court to accord opportunity to both sides for evidence.

Thammana Sayasi Setti Vs Sheif Begum Kumari — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5886 of 2010

¶2

Date:03.12.2011

¶3

Between:

¶4

Thammana Sanyasi Setti

¶5

..... Petitioner/Decree-Holder.

¶6

AND

¶7

Shaik Begum Kumari and another.

¶8

.....Respondents/Judgment-Debtors.

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5886 of 2010 ORDER:

¶11

Notice to the 2^nd respondent is not served. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent is not a necessary party and notice need not go to him. This petition is disposed of without hearing the 2^nd respondent.

¶12

2. The petitioner is the Decree-Holder.

¶13

The respondents are the Judgment-Debtors 1 & 2. The Decree-Holder laid O.S.No.127 of 2003 on the

¶14

file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam against the Judgment-Debtors who were borrowers. The 1^st Judgment-Debtor would appear to have filed written statement. The 2^nd Judgment-Debtor remained e x parte . The 1^st Judgment-Debtor also did not participate in the trial. Consequently, the suit was decreed ex parte .

¶15

3. The Decree-Holder, later filed E.P.No.256 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against the 1^st JudgmentDebtor.

¶16

It is claimed that the 1^st Judgment-Debtor has been working as an Attender in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Her salary is sought to be attached.

¶17

4. The 1^st Judgment-Debtor filed counter claiming that she is not Shaik Begum Kumari as described in the decree and in the suit, that she is Shaik Kumari Bai, that she is not the JudgmentDebtor in O.S.No.127 of 2003 and that the decree in O.S.No.127 of 2003 is not executable against her.

¶18

5. The grouse of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Decree-Holder is that after the counter

¶19

of the 1^st Judgment-Debtor, the Execution Petition was straight away dismissed by the Execution Court without according opportunity to the Decree-Holder to prove his case that the 1^st Judgment-Debtor indeed was the executant of the pronote and that the suit indeed was laid against the 1^st Judgment-Debtor. It is a question of fact as to whether the 1^st Judgment-Debtor and the person against whom the decree is sought to be executed are one and the same. When the person whose salary is sought to be attached is claiming that she is not Judgment-Debtor No.1, it would be just and proper to accord opportunity to the Decree-Holder to prove that the salary attachment was indeed against the salary of the 1^st JudgmentDebtor. I, therefore, consider that reasonable opportunity deserves to be accorded to the petitioner to prove his case before the trial Court.

¶20

6. Consequently, the orders in E.P.No.256 of 2005 are set aside. The case is remitted to the Execution Court. The Execution Court is requested to accord opportunity to the DecreeHolder as well as the respondents to establish their respective cases and then pass necessary orders. The Execution Court indeed is at liberty to proceed with the case and pass orders if either

¶21

side does not adduce evidence and does not contest the case. The revision is ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR_

¶23

Date:03.12.2011. mrb

Thammana Sayasi Setti v. Sheif Begum Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thammana Sayasi Setti v. Sheif Begum Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandal Sanjeeva Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

- Vs -

M/s. Premier Formulations Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Begum Bee , Moulan Bee, Vs Shaik Hussain

Kopparla Satyanarayana Raju, name mentioned as Geddla Vs State of A.P.

Mohammed Khajawali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh