Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 980 (AP)

P. Subrahmanyam Raju v. P. Jayachandra Reddy

2002-08-09

G.BIKSHAPATHY

body2002
G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the order dated 19-12-2001 passed by the learned additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti in E. P. No. 150 of 2001 in O. S. No. 279 of 1999. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the decreeholder. He filed the suit O. S. No. 279 of 1999 for recovery of certain amounts. The said suit was decreed and the decree has become final. In pursuance of the decree he filed the execution petition. In the execution petition the respondent has pleaded that he has no means. The lower court accepted the contention of the judgment-debtor and dismissed the E. P. by an order dt. 19-12-2001 against which the present revision is filed. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent judgment- debtor was a conductor working in the andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation. Apart from that, his wife is also working as post-woman. The judgment- debtor was also owning a mango grove of six acres. Under these circumstances, the lower court ought not to have dismissed the execution petition. ( 4 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the decreeholder is not able to prove that the judgment-debtor has means to comply with the decree and that he is evading to pay the same. Under these circumstances the order passed by the lower court cannot be said to be illegal. ( 5 ) I am afraid I cannot accept the contention of the counsel for the respondent. The lower court has not considered the matter in a proper perspective. The judgment-debtor is a Conductor working in the APSRTC and it cannot be said that an employed person has no means at all. Even under Sec. 60 C. P. C. only one third of the salary is not attachable. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the order passed by the lower court is not sustainable and the matter has to be considered in a proper perspective. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower court for fresh consideration. It is open for the parties to adduce necessary evidence in respect of their respective pleas. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower court for fresh consideration. It is open for the parties to adduce necessary evidence in respect of their respective pleas. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.