Allowed

Kotla Venkata Rama Kumar v. Tammineedi Veeraghavulu(Died) and 5 Others

Telangana HC3 Aug 2018CRP/2289/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against an arrest warrant issued under CPC, the High Court set aside the warrant as it was passed without an application under Order XXI Rule 37(2). The Court directed the lower court to dispose of the execution proceedings within six weeks, allowing ex parte proceedings if the petitioner fails to appear.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dating 29.03.2018 issuing arrest warrant set aside; lower court directed to dispose of execution petition within six weeks.

Kotla Venkata Rama Kumar Vs Tammineedi… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISOIN PETITION No.2289 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against docket order dated 29.03.2018 in E.P.14 of 2017 in O.S.No.470 of 2009, wherein and whereby the Court below, due to absence of the petitioner issued arrest warrant under Order XXI Rule 37 (2) of CPC for securing the presence of the petitioner/J.Dr.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that when EP No.14 of 2017 is pending, the Court below has no power to issue order of Arrest Warrant of petitioner and that even if petitioner is not present, the Court below can proceed with enquiry in the absence of petitioner, but cannot order for arrest of petitioner.

¶6

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though several opportunities are granted, the petitioner/Judgment Debtor is not at all cooperating in the enquiry in E.P. He submits that the Court below having no other go, issued an order of arrest.

¶7

In this case, it is to be seen that EP No.14 of 2017 itself is pending before the Court below. Admittedly, no application is filed under Order XXI Rule 37 (2) of CPC seeking arrest of petitioner/J.Dr. As such, in the absence of such application, the Court below ought not to have passed the impugned order of arrest against the petitioner/J.Dr.

¶8

In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.03.2018 to the extent of issuance of Arrest Warrant against the petitioner/J.Dr is set aside and the Court below is directed to dispose of the EP itself within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner fails to appear, the Court below can take appropriate steps setting him exparte and proceed with enquiry.

¶9

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

¶10

_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 03.08.2018 kvs

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2289 OF 2018

¶13

Date: 03.08.2018

¶14

kvs

Kotla Venkata Rama Kumar v. Tammineedi Veeraghavulu(Died) and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotla Venkata Rama Kumar v. Tammineedi Veeraghavulu(Died) and 5 Others

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

M/s. Sitaram Energy and Logistics Ltd., Vs The Union of India

Shyamala Devi Kothari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Aadilakshmi Vs State of Telangana

Chilukuri Tri Venkata Narayana Murthy Vs Sunkara Anasurya Devi

Cheemalamudi Venkateswara Rao Vs Sunkara Anasurya Devi

T. Mohan Reddy Vs The State of T.S.