Chamanthula Suresh v. Siydhri Eswara Rao
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V ESWARAIAH
Outcome
Disposed of
case, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 21 r. 38
Judgment
Petitioner Respondent The petitioner is judgment debtor, who suffered a decree in OS No. 70 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, by judgment and decree dated 28.8.2003 and as the decreetal amount was not paid, the decree holder/respondent herein filed EP No. 154 of 2004 under Order 21 Rule 38 CPC for recovery of a sum of Rs.70,242/-, filing which to issue warrant of arrest and send the petitioner to civil prison. The respondent stated that the petitioner is having both business and Ac.10.00 of agriculture wet land and earning approximately Rs.80,000/- per year and even though he has means to satisfy the decree, but avoiding payment of the decreetal amount. Only oral evidence was adduced during the course of enquiry in the E.P. The respondent in his examination as PW-1 stated that the petitioner is having a house at Narsipatnam worth about Rs.5.00 lakhs and lands to an extent of Ac.10.00 worth Rs.20.00 lakhs and getting income of Rs.80,000/- per annum. The petitioner, who was examined as RW-1 has denied means to pay the decreetal amount and further stated that he is eking out his livelihood by attending coolie work and he admitted that he is working in a Television Repair Shop. It is stated that the petitioner has sustained an injury on his head when he met with an accident while going on his own bike. Thus the Court came to the conclusion that when the petitioner is having his own bike, he has sufficient means to satisfy the decree, but avoiding payment.
Operative part
Learned counsel for the petitioner - judgment debtor submits that the respondent failed to prove the means test by filing any documentary evidence with regard to his possessing house, survey number of the lands and, therefore, it cannot be said that the means test has been proved by the decree holder/respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner filed Insolvency Petition No. 5 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam showing the amount payable by the petitioner to the creditors having suffered decrees in various suits and, therefore, it can be said that the petitioner has means to satisfy the decree. Admittedly, these aspects were not spoken to by the petitioner in his deposition before the court below. But, however, this court while issuing notice before admission by order dated 3.7.2009 granted interim stay on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/- within eight weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no information whether the said interim order had been complied with or not, but only requests for the grant of time for payment of the decreetal amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to clear off the entire E.P. amount within three equal monthly instalments commencing from April,
2011. In the event of the petitioner committing default in payment of any one of the three instalments on 10th of April, 10th of May and 10th of June, 2011, it is open for the decree holder to get execution of the order in question. No order as to costs. March 04, 2011 MAS ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: case, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 21 r. 38.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.