Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1571 (AP)

C. Dilip Kumar v. Y. Veera Raghavulu

2023-12-13

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dtd. 27/1/2017 passed in E.P.No.284 of 2014 in O.S.No.175 of 2011 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur. 2. The respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.284 of 2014 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C., seeking arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor. In the application seeking arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor, the trial Court was of the opinion that when once the judgment debtor admits that he is an employee, he was having sufficient means to repay the amount and that there was no evidence on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor that his wife is suffering from ill-health nor any witnesses were examined to substantiate his case. The trial Court allowed the E.P. as it was of the opinion that the judgment debtor is having sufficient means to pay all the debts. 3. This Court after examining the case on merits opines as under; An application for civil prison for realizing the decretal amount seems to be a necessary consequence of a money decree. A plaintiff, after going through the grind of trial and after overcoming every plausible defense taken by the defendant, gets a decree in his favour and in E.P seeking for arrest of Judgment Debtor is again called upon to go through the grind of trial 2.0 in execution proceedings, i.e. the means enquiry. 4. In the means enquiry, a presumption of defendant/judgment debtor having requisites means needs to be drawn as the defendant/judgment debtor has received amount under the suit promissory note or under any other document and the receipt of the amount stood crystallized under the decree that is sought to be enforced. Whenever a plea of no means is taken by the judgment debtor, the amount/means received under the suit document needs to be explained, this is the primary and fundamental aspect of this inquiry. It is only when there is a sufficient and bona fide explanation from the judgment debtor, the onus shifts to the decree holder. 5. The trend of judgment debtor taking a casual plea of no means and decree holder running all around after succeeding in the suit does not augur well and trivializes a hard fought decree of civil Court. It is only when there is a sufficient and bona fide explanation from the judgment debtor, the onus shifts to the decree holder. 5. The trend of judgment debtor taking a casual plea of no means and decree holder running all around after succeeding in the suit does not augur well and trivializes a hard fought decree of civil Court. Today, where there are multiple options of means/assets i.e from fixed deposits, stock holdings etc., and immovable assets outside the local jurisdictions and State, it would be easy for the judgment debtor to avoid the execution. 6. In the course of enquiry, if the executing Court gets a whiff of dishonest tactics by the judgment debtor to delay or default the execution, the executing Courts must be absolutely firm and ruthless in stopping such unhealthy practices. This is absolutely essential because otherwise the rule of law would not only be set at naught, but it would virtually nullify and neutralize the decree of competent Courts. 7. Though, it is consistently pleaded that arrest is an extreme measure affecting the fundamental rights of the individual, but the dramatic effectiveness of this provision is apparent from the fact that in every case, where an order of civil arrest is passed, the decretal amounts are realized in short time thereafter and more importantly, before arrest. 8. Though statistical analysis is not used institutionally to check the impact of legal provisions and orders, a study of such would be profitable and enables the Courts to evolve consistency in dispensation of justice. The statistical analysis would be an additional tool to the Courts apart from the binding precedents. 9. This Court therefore does not find any merit in the facts of this case and the order of trial Court is affirmed. However, the petitioner is granted three (3) months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to pay the decretal amount and in the event of failure to comply with the payment of decretal amount, the order of the trial Court dtd. 27/1/2017 in E.P.No.284 of 2014 in O.S.No.175 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu will be enforceable. 10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.