Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 190 (AP)

Visarapu Someswara Rao v. Mutyala Ganga Raju

2011-03-04

V.ESWARAIAH

body2011
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is judgment debtor, who suffered a decree in M.O.P. No. 1334 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam on 24.5.2004 for payment of Rs.97,992/- and as the decreetal amount was not paid, the decree holders/respondents 1 and 2 filed EP No. 13 of 2008 for realization of the decreetal amount along with interest amounting to Rs.1,35,671/- under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC to issue warrant of arrest against the second judgment debtor, after issuing show cause notice, so as to realize the E.P. amount. 2. A counter filed on behalf of the second judgment debtor shows that he is aged seventy years and he is dependant on his children only and he is not aware about passing of the decree, as no notice was served and, therefore, the said decree cannot be executed. 3. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner herein stated that he got a tractor – trailer and he has got two rooms portion at Laxmipuram and he has gone to Dubai for labour work. In view of the said admission, the court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner has got a house, tractor and trailer and has gone to Dubai, obviously for earning purpose and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has no means to satisfy the decree and, accordingly held that the petitioner herein has means to pay the decreetal amount but intentionally trying to avoid payment to defeat the decree and, therefore, he is liable for arrest. As against the said order dated 29.8.2008 passed in EP No. 13 of 2005 in M.O.P. No. 1334 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. While issuing notice before admission, by order dated 12.12.2008 this court granted interim stay on the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the decreetal amount within a period of four weeks. As the said amount was not paid, the petitioner applied for extension of time, which was again extended on 22.1.2010 by two more weeks. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not filed any proof relating to payment of the said amount, but orally submitted that the said order had been complied with. 5. The only question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the petitioner has got means or not. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not filed any proof relating to payment of the said amount, but orally submitted that the said order had been complied with. 5. The only question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the petitioner has got means or not. 6. As per his own admission that the petitioner has got a house and tractor-trailer and that he had gone to Dubai, it cannot be said that he has no means to pay the decreetal amount. Moreover, the petitioner submits that he has already paid half of the decreetal amount and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has no means to pay the balance amount. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise, warranting interference. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted eight weeks time to pay the entire decreetal amount, failing which it is open for the respondents/decree holders to execute the order under revision. No order as to costs.