Dismissed

Jannu Chennaiah and Another v. Sonnathi Muralidhar and Another

Telangana HC18 Oct 2022CRP/1918/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order permitting civil imprisonment. It held the decree holder discharged the burden of proving sufficient means via inquiry and circumstantial evidence, finding the trial court's order valid despite a pending second appeal.

What did the court decide?

CRP dismissed; orders dated 27.03.2015 in E.P. No.36 of 2012 confirmed; no order as to costs.

Jannu Chennaiah and Another Vs Sonnathi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[3218 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STA.TE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAT)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1918 OF 2015

¶7

Petition under Section 115 of CPC to revise the Order dated 2710312015 made in EP No.36 of 2012 in OS No.37 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Wanaparthy.

¶8

Eetween:

¶9

Jannu Chennaiah, S/o. Late Narsimhulu, aged about 67 years, Occ: Welding Shop, R:/o. Khilla Ghanapur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶10

Gandla Balaiah, S/o. Late Cheprasi Bichanna, aged about 75 years, Occ: Asricurture, Fi"/o. Khirra Ghanapur Virrane and Ma.n$fl#i3iiJR373ilPJ.l,,;,,

¶11

AND

¶12

Sonnathi Muralidhar, S/o. Late Viswanatham, aged about 65 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. H. No. 3-106, Khilla Ghanapur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶13

Sirisala Sanjanna, S/o. Late Chennaiah (died)

¶14

(2* respondent who is the JDR 2 is not necessary party)

¶15

...RESPONDENTi DHR

¶16

For the Petitioners : SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate

¶17

Forthe Respondents: SRI J.SURESH BABU, Advocate

¶18

The Court made tfe following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1918 OF 2015 ORDER:

¶21

The petitioners / judgment debtor Nos. 1 and 3 have filed this Civil Revision Petition (for short 'CRP') under Section I 15 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') assailing the legality and validity of the orders dated 27.O3.2O15 in E.P.No.36 of 2Ol2 in O.S.No.37 of 2003, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Walaparthy.

¶22

The decree holder has Iiled E.P.No.36 of 2Ol2 under Order 2 1, Rules 37 and 38 of CPC rvith a prayer to send the judgment debtor Nos.1 and 3 to civil imprisonment for realization of the decretal amount. The trial Court, after due enquiry and on ascertaining the 'means' of judgment debtors, has passed a detailed order directing the respondents / judgment debtors to pay the decretal amount on or before 26.04.2015, failing which they shatl be sent to civil prison in accordance with the provisions of CPC for realization of the execution petition amount.

¶23

AVIt.J ( IU' l9t8 l0ti

¶24

¶25

Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the judgment debtor Nos. 1 and 3 have filed this CRP alleging that the burden lies on the decree holder to prove that the judgment debtors are having "sufficient means" to pay the decretal amount and failed to pay the same but the trial Court has erroneously placed burden upon the^judgment debtors in the present case, the decree holder, except filing Grampanchayat Certificate to show the house property, which is on the name of wife of the judgment debtor, has failed to adduce any other evidence. The trial Court, also failed to consider that the second^judgment debtor died after passing the decree and no steps are taken to bring the legal representatives of deceased judgment debtor No.2 on to record. The judgment debtor has also filed Second Appeal No.427 of 2OO9 before the High Court assailing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.37 of 2OO3 and accordingly, the triai Court ought to have dismissed the Execution Petition.

¶26

Heard on both sides. The submissions made by learned counsel on both sides have received due consideration of this Court.

¶27

\ R..l ( ltP t() t8 20ti

¶28

For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter re,ferred to as decree holder and^judgmerlt debtors, as arrayed in E.P.No.36 of 2012.

¶29

The decree holder has filed the original suit in O.S.No.37 of 2003 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,26,42O/' and obtained a decree. Feeling aggrieved by the^judgment and decree in O.S.No.37 of 2003, the^judgment debtors have preferred A.S.No.3 of 2005 before II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar and the sarne was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.37 of 2003. Assailing the sajd judgment and decree in A.S.No.3 of 2005 the judgment clebtor Nos. 1 and 3 have filed Second Appeal No.427 of 2009 before the High Court and the same is pending. In the second appeal, as per rlrders in SAMP No.981 of 2OO9, conditional stay was granted subject to deposit of half of the decretal amount within six weeks, but the judgment debtors have failed to deposit the amount as per the directions of this Court. The judgment debtor No.1 is a businessman and also doing welding business. Judgment debtor No.3 is an agriculturist, having sufficient

------.

AVR.J aRP t9n l0li

means. Accordingly, execution petition is filed for realization of the decretal amount.

¶34

7 . During enquiry, on behalf of decree holders, the decree holder himself got examined himself as PWl apart from examining independent witness as PW2 and got marked Exs.Pl to P3 documents. Whereas, judgment debtor Nos.1 and 3 are examined as RWs. 1 and 2 and their evidence was closed.

¶35

The trial Court on careful appreciation of oral and documentar5r evidence, discussed above, held that the judgment debtors are having sufficient means for payment of decretal amount. Though judgment debtor No.l has claimed that the property covered under Ex.P3 as Stridhan property of his wife, he has not adduced any substantial evidence to that effect and that the oral evidence of RW2 itself is sufficient to show that the said property is purchased by RWl (Judgment debtor No.1) and kept it on the name of his wife. The trial Court has also taken note of the fact that while preferring the appeal, the judgment debtors have paid total costs and Court fee ol Rs.28,500i -.

¶36

,\'R.l t Rt, t9l8 2t)ti

¶37

¶38

This itseif is sufficient to held that they have means to pay the decretal amount. Learned counsel for the^judgment debtors strenuously contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence with regard to settled principles of lau, and the entire burden was thrown on the judgment debtors and that the decree holder has failed to establish that the^judgment debtors have got "sufficient means" for repayment of the decretal amount. He has relied on the principles laid in the following dectsrons :

¶39

(1) E.Murugaiah and another Vs. C.Ekambara Reddyl.

¶40

(21 Aluru Venkata Rao Vs. Kodali Venkata Sri Krishna Jaganmohan Raoz

¶41

Pcr contra, learned counsel for the respondents /^{decree holder would submitthat the judgmentdebtors} have failed to pay the decretal amount and filed appeal in AS No.3 of 2005, which was dismissed on 18.O3.2009 confirming the judgment ald decree din OS No.37 of 2OO3 and assailing the orders in AS No.3 of 2005 the judgment debtors have filed second appeal No.427 of 2OO9. He has further submitted that as per the orders in CRPMP

¶42

'^{to96 1:; At-TZ2O}

¶43

'^t9e+ 1:;^{alr s;s}

AVR.l eRP l9t 8 loti

No.4167 of 2015 this Court has directed the judgment debtors for depositing | /4'h of the amount and time was also extended till 14.08.2015 for deposit of the said amount but till date no such amount is deposited. It is further submitted that though in the second appeal stav was gralted subject to deposit of half of decretal amount together with costs with a liberty to the decree holder to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any surety, the judgment debtors, who are the appellants in SA No.427 of 2OO9 have failed to comply the said order.

¶48

Execution Application No.36 of 2Ol2 rs illed by the decree holder under Order XXI, Rule 37 of CPC for recovery of decreta-l amount by sending the judgment debtors to the civil prison. Thus, the burden lies on the decree holder to show that the judgment debtors have "sufficient means" and capacilr to pay the decretal arnount and they are negligent in discharging the decretal amount To establish the same, the decree holder himself got examined as PWl and also examined an independent witness as PW2 and got marked Exs.Pl to P3 documents This evidence of PWs.7 and 2 and the contents of Exs.P1 to

¶49

,\ lt..t cRP l9l8 tr)t5

¶50

¶51

¶52

P3 coupled s'ith the circumstances that the judgment debtors have paid the Court lee while preferring the appeal is sufficient :o hold that the judgment debtors having sufficient means to discharge the decretal obiigations arising out of the execution proceedings, deliberately evaded discharging the same. That apart, the judgment debtors have also failed to comply with the conditional order passed in CRP MP No.4167 of 2015 by depositing I /4th of the decretal amount. Further, the judgment debtors have also failed to comply with the orders passed in second aplreal u,hile granting stay and they failed to deposit half of decretal amount together with the costs.

¶53

I 1. ln E.Murugaiah and another Vs. C.Ekambara

¶54

Reddy (1.t supra), this Court while dealing with Section 51 of CPC held that in appropriate cases the Courts may order for payment of decretal amount in instalments instead of ordering for eLi'rest. In Aluru Venkata Rao Vs. Kodali Venkata Sri Krishna Jaganmohan Rao {2"d supra), this Court has held that initial burden of proving that the judgment debtor has means to pay the decretal amount lies on the decree holcler.

¶55

.\VR.I cRP r9lll^l0l5

¶56

¶57

In the case on hand, the decree holder is able to establish that the^judgment debtor Nos. I and 3 have got sufficient means to discharge decretal obligations. Oral evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is sufficient to show that the judgment debtor Nos.l and 3 have means to pay the decretal amount. Thus, the principles laid in the above decisions are not helpful to the^judgment debtor Nos.1 and 3

¶58

or 1 3. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity illegality in appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the tria,l Court and the findings recorded thereon. The order impugned does not warrant any interference by this Court. The trial Court has recorded the findings basing on the material available on record and the oral and documentarSr evidence adduced on behalf of decree holder is sufficient to hold that the judgment debtor Nos.1 and 3 have got means and capacity to pay the decretal amount and they \rere negligent 1n discharge of the decretal amount. That apart, both the judgment debtors have failed to comply u,ith the conditional order passed in this CRP

¶59

AVR.J atiP l9lfi l0ti

¶60

¶61

and a-lso in the second appeal vrrherein they rvere directed to deposit I /4tt, of the amount and half ol the amount ,*,ithin the specified period with a liberty to the decree holder to withdrau, the saicl amount. In such facts and circumstances, Ido not find any reason to interfere with the order imptLgned ald it is sustained.

¶62

In the result, this CRP is dismissed confirming the orders clated 27.03.2015 in E.P.No.36 of 2OI2 in O.S.No.37 of 2003, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order :rs to the costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.

¶63

//TRUE COPY//

¶64

SdIB.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR i -'^iti 1s\t-r \t ' SECTION OFFICER

¶65

To 1. The Senior^{Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, Itilahabubnagar'} i. d; ct'6 sii-m.o"ilooa^{Reddv,Advocatglg3uc]} e il; cc io sri^{J.Suresh Babu, Advocate[OPUC]} 4. Two CD CoPies

Ki &ii^V

HIGH COURT

DAfED:1811012022

/r,flfi- <br>1fiI
11 [i'"

¶70

ORDER

¶71

CRP.No.1918 of 2015