Dismissed

Indruthi Ranga Rao, v. Aluri Ramabrahmachari

Telangana HC24 Jan 2013CRP/5251/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision challenged the dismissal of an execution petition seeking detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison. The court held that the decree holder failed to substantiate the claim that the judgment debtor had sufficient means or assets. Consequently, no bad faith was established, and the revision was dismissed without interference with the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision and execution petition for detention in civil prison are dismissed as the decree holder failed to prove the judgment debtor had sufficient means to pay the decretal debt.

Indruthi Ranga Rao, Vs Aluri Ramabrahmachari — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION CASE No.5251 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This revision is directed against the order dated 17.04.2004 passed in E.P.No.9 of 2002 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, whereby and whereunder the execution petition filed by the decree holder seeking detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison ended in dismissal.

¶5

The petitioner is the decree holder and the respondent is the judgment debtor. The petitioner filed E.P.No.9 of 2002 for realisation of the decretal debt in O.S.No.107 of 1999 and sought for detention of the respondent-judgment debtor in civil prison. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent, having sufficient means, neglected to discharge the liability under the decree. Whereas, the respondent-judgment debtor pleaded no means to pay the decretal amount.

¶6

On behalf of the petitioner-decree holder, he got himself examined as PW1 and marked five documents as Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent-judgment debtor, he got himself examined as RW1 and marked seven documents as Exs.B1 to B7.

¶7

The executing Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the decree holder failed to establish the means of the judgment debtor to pay the decretal debt and thereby proceeded to dismiss the execution petition by order dated 17.04.2004. Hence, this revision.

¶8

Despite notice being served on the respondent, none appears on his behalf.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision.

¶10

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the evidence of RW1 itself is sufficient to infer that the respondentjudgment debtor has sufficient means and therefore, the trial Court committed serious error in dismissing the execution petition.

¶11

What is contemplated under Section 51 of C.P.C. is not simple

¶12

default to discharge the decree. There must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past or, alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it. The provision emphasises the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of refusal on demand verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation under the decree vide the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese V. The Bank of Cochin^[1] .

¶13

Depositions of RW1 and PW1 are placed on record during the course of hearing for perusal. Nothing is stated by PW1 as to the judgment debtor having property either movable in the form of cash or bank account, or immovable property such as land or house. No documents have been placed on record by the PW1 (decree holder) with regard to the income earned by the judgment debtor by doing real estate business. Even while judgment debtor being examined as RW1, nothing was suggested to him that he owned immovable property or cash balance in any of the banks. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner (decree holder) failed to substantiate his plea that the judgment debtor, having sufficient means, neglected to pay the decretal debt. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the petition. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

¶14

Accordingly, the civil revision is dismissed.

¶15

______________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶16

24^th January, 2013 Vjl/gkv

¶17

[1] AIR 1980 SC 470

Indruthi Ranga Rao, v. Aluri Ramabrahmachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indruthi Ranga Rao, v. Aluri Ramabrahmachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. v.Rajanishri Vs Sri K.Ramesh

A.Naga Padmavathi Vs State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

Aedukondalu Venkatesham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Neelavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.Pathan Zahir Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lomada Sudhakar Reddy Vs The State of Ap.