Allowed

Parsi Pawan Kumar v. B.Mutyala Prakash

Telangana HC18 Oct 2014CRP/215/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging a single-judge court's order restricting the defendant's movement. The Court held the restraint was unwarranted as property was already attached, and the defendant denied fleeing. Liberty to the plaintiff to approach the Court if the defendant attempts to leave.

What did the court decide?

Restriction order restricting defendant's free movement quashed; liberty granted to plaintiff for immediate remedy if defendant attempts to flee.

Parsi Pawan Kumar Vs B.Mutyala Prakash — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.215 OF 2013

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The Revision Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.59 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Nizamabad. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/-, which includes interest as on the date of filing of the suit, and the suit is based on a promissory note dated 13.04.2010. The plaintiff also filed a petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. read with 151 of C.P.C., in I.A.No.663 of 2012 in O.S.No.59 of 2012, seeking for a direction to restrain the defendant from leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the Court pending disposal of the suit. This petition came to be ordered by an order dated 09.10.2012. Aggrieved by this Order of the Court, petitioner is before this Court.

¶5

Notice was issued to the respondents. One Sri Y.S.Yella Nanda Gupta, Advocate filed vakalath on behalf of the respondent. Matter came before this Court on 18.09.2014 and also listed on 17.10.2014, as there was no representation on behalf of the respondent the matter was directed to be posted to 18.10.2014 under the caption ‘for orders’. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶6

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Court below erred in passing restraint orders ignoring the facts on record, and in particular the fact that the Court below had already passed an attachment order with respect to the property in Flat No.102 (3 bed rooms) in Laxmi Mansion situated at Gangasthan, Phase-I, Nizamabad, which flat was purchased by the revision petitioner vide sale deed dated 05.11.2011, the property is valued at Rs.11,09,000/-, which is adequate security. However, this aspect of the matter was though noticed by the Court below, was not considered. Hence, restricting the movement of the revision petitioner, affecting the career of a young man of 29 years, infringing his right of free movement is unwarranted and excessive, thus the Court below erred grievously.

¶7

The Court below had recorded the fact that the property in Flat No.102 on 1^st floor at Gangasthan, Phase-I was attached. The Court below appeared to have been impressed by the fact that the revision petitioner-defendant had filed I.P. No.13 of 2012, whereunder a total liability of Rs.1,65,00,000/- was shown as being owed to the various creditors. Whatever may be the position, considering the fact that attachment of the property has already been made, though this property also came to be shown as one of the property in I.P. No.13 of 2012, it could not be said that the interest of the plaintiff is not secured. Further, the revision petitioner also denied in the counter affidavit that he had applied for passport or he is trying to flee away from the country to defeat the creditors. In that view of the matter, the order passed in I.A.No.663 of 2012 in O.S.No.59 of 2012 restricting the right of the revision petitioner’s free movement is unwarranted.

¶8

Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, it is needless to mention, liberty is given to the respondent-plaintiff to approach the Court in the event the revision petitioner makes any concrete effort to get away from the country by approaching the Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also closed.

¶9

----------------------------------CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶10

Dated:18.10.2014. Ssv

Parsi Pawan Kumar v. B.Mutyala Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parsi Pawan Kumar v. B.Mutyala Prakash

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

Dr. Sanjeev Singh Yadav, Vs Smt. Suryakala

The Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

T. Subhash Goud Vs H. Kashi Reddy

Bantu Madhuri , Sunitha Vs Bantu Suman

K. Kishan Reddy Vs Smt. M. Bushavva

Rosaiah Kannekanti Vs The State of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary to