Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1334 (AP)

Patnana Venkataramana v. Mutnuru Venkataramana

2006-10-30

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2006
ORDER The respondent tiled O.S.No.243 of 2003 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, against the petitioner, for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,600/-. After contest by the petitioner herein, the trial Court decreed the suit on 15-9-2004. The decree became final, since the petitioner did not prefer any appeal. Thereupon, the respondent filed E.P.No.1 of 2005 under Rule 37 of Order XXI CPC, stating that despite possessing adequate means, the petitioner did not pay the decretal amount. He ultimately prayed for the arrest of the petitioner. After following the procedure prescribed, the trial Court allowed the E.P. on 5-12-2005, recording a finding to the effect that despite possessing adequate means, the petitioner did not pay the decretal amount and ultimately directed his detention in civil prison. The same is challenged in this Civil Revisior Petition. 2. Sri K. Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except making a vague and general observation that the petitioner had adequate means, the executing Court did not support its conclusion, with any material or reasons. He contends that-the petitioner is having only a share in the properties mentioned in the order and that he is drawing a salary of hardly Rs.3,000/-per month. He contends that if the respondent was of the view that the petitioner is possessed of any properties, it was always open to him to proceed against them. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had deliberately omitted to honour the decree and that the order under revision does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. 4. It is not in dispute that the decree against the petitioner became final. The respondent filed E.P. under Rule 37 of Order XXI CPC. The procedure prescribed under Order XXI CPC, in this regard, mandates that the judgment debtor must depose before the executing Court in the presence of the decree holder. The enquiry, in this regard, is limited to the furnishing of information about the different items of property. The reason is that it is only on being satisfied that despite possessing adequate means, the judgment debtor did not comply with the decree, that the executing Court can proceed with the matter. The enquiry, at this stage, cannot, however, be compared with the appreciation of evidence in the trial of the suit. The reason is that it is only on being satisfied that despite possessing adequate means, the judgment debtor did not comply with the decree, that the executing Court can proceed with the matter. The enquiry, at this stage, cannot, however, be compared with the appreciation of evidence in the trial of the suit. Once the decree holder alleges that the judgment debtor possesses an item of property, it is for the latter to disprove it, failing which an inference would be drawn to the effect that he possesses adequate means, though not the property as an absolute owner. The petitioner thoroughly failed in this front and had virtually assumed the role of a spectator. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client may be extended the benefit of paying the decretal amount in instalments. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposed his request, on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed by this Court, while granting interim order on 30-6-2006. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is, however, granted the facility of paying the decretal amount in three monthly instalments. The first instalment of the decretal amount shall be paid on or before 31-12-2006, the second instalment on or before 28-2-2007; and the third instalment on or before 30-4-2007. If the petitioner fails to deposit anyone instalment, it shall be open to the respondent as well as the executing Court, to enforce the order under revision. As and when the instalments are deposited, it shall be open to the respondent to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.