HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.645 & 646 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER:
Civil Revision Petition No.645 of 2020 is filed against the
order dated 19.2.2020 in O.E.P. No.51 of 2018 in O.S.No.209
of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Madanapalle. C.R.P. No.646 of 2020 is filed
against the order dated 19.2.2020 in O.E.P. No.50 of 2018 in
O.S.No.49 of 2009 on the file of the same Court.
2. As the matters are of similar nature and the petitioner
in both the Revision Petitions is one and the same, both the
Revision Petitions are being disposed of, by this common
order.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondents.
4. By separate orders dated 19.2.2020 in the above said petitions filed under Order XXI, Rules 37 & 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner, who is the Judgment Debtor in the above referred suits. The respondents herein are the wife and husband. The wife is the Decree Holder in O.S.No.49 of 2009 and the husband is the Decree Holder in O.S.No.209 of 2009. The said suits are filed for recovery of Rs.8,59,667/- and Rs.8,60,000/- on the foot of separate Promissory notes dated 21.1.2006 and 07.9.2006 executed by the 2 petitioner/defendant. Vide separate judgments dated 22.9.2016, the suits were decreed, as prayed for, together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. The judgments and decrees in the said suits have become final. Seeking execution of the respective decrees, the respondents initiated Execution Proceedings and the properties were attached under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC. Subsequently, the above mentioned O.E.Ps were filed seeking to detain the petitioner in civil prison for his failure to discharge the decretal amounts. On contest, the said petitions were allowed by separate orders dated 19.2.2020 against which the respective Civil Revision Petitions are filed, as mentioned above.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the impugned orders under Revisions are not sustainable. He submits that the petitioners have no means to discharge the decretal amounts and without taking the said aspect into consideration, the Executing Court has passed the orders, which are under challenge. He submits that the respondents have obtained orders of attachment and instead of proceeding against the properties attached in the respective suits, deliberately and with a mala fide intention filed the above said petitions seeking arrest of the petitioner. He further submits that the Executing Court failed to exercise 3 the jurisdiction vested in it and that the orders under revisions are liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavits stating that the petitioner is having financial capacity and he is in real estate business, and only with a view to harass the respondents and evade payment of the decretal amounts, the present revision petitions are filed. While refuting the contention that the petitions seeking arrest were filed with a mala fide intention is not correct, he submits that it is the prerogative of Decree Holder to choose the method for getting the decrees executed and Judgment Debtor has no say in the matter. The learned counsel also relies on Order XXI, Rule 30 CPC and submits that there are no merits warranting interference in the orders under revisions. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the same.
7. This Court by order dated 05.3.2020 in CRP No.645 of 2020 granted stay on the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the E.P. amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In CRP No.646 of 2020 by order dated 04.3.2020 stay was granted on the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the E.P. amount within a period of eight weeks. The petitioner complied with the said orders and the respondents were permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited by orders dated 22.2.2022 in the respective revision petitions. 4
8. Be that as it may. This Court has considered the submissions made and gone through the individual orders passed in the above mentioned petitions. The Executing Court on considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, recorded categorical conclusions that the Judgment Debtor is having sufficient means to honour the decrees. It has also recorded a finding that the petitioner/Judgment Debtor is having sufficient means to discharge the decretal amounts and he is avoiding to honour the decrees. This Court, in such circumstances, is not inclined to interfere with the well-considered orders of the Executing Court and the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are therefore rejected. However, as half of the decretal amounts have already been deposited, this Court deems it appropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioner to fully satisfy the decrees by depositing the balance amounts within a stipulated period.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of, by recalling the warrants pursuant to the orders in the above referred O.E.Ps, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing the balance decretal amounts to the credit of the respective suits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, the amounts are not deposited within the time as mentioned above, the orders passed in O.E.P. No.51 of 2018 in O.S.No.209 of 2009 and O.E.P. No.50 of 2018 in O.S.No.49 of 2009 stand 5 automatically revived. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J March 24, 2022.
vasu