Mutham Chetty Venkataramana vs Purushotham
2022 Latest Caselaw 9811 AP

                                                                      BSS,J
                                                     C.R.P.No.4438 of 2017
                                    1

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

                          C.R.P.No.4438 of 2017
ORDER:

I have heard learned counsel for revision petitioner/Judgment-

debtor Mr.O.Uday Kumar. There is no representation for the

respondent/Decree-holder, who already filed calculation memo as

directed by this Court.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/Judgment-

debtor (J.Dr.) under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC')

against the orders passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati, in E.P.No.118 of 2016 in O.S.No.1235 of 1998 dated 24.08.2017

wherein and where under the executing Court ordered for detention of

petitioner in civil prison for a period of two months in realisation of

execution petition amount.

3. The respondent obtained money decree against the revision

petitioner in O.S.No.1235 of 1998 and filed execution petition under

Order XXI Rules 22, 37 and 38 CPC for arrest and detention of J.Dr. in

civil prison and also sought attachment of movables of J.Dr. on the

ground that inspite of having sufficient means, the revision petitioner is

neglecting to pay execution petition amount wherein revision petitioner

filed counter stating that he is not having any movable or immovable

properties and he is not leading any luxurious life as stated by D.Hr. It BSS,J C.R.P.No.4438 of 2017

is also the contention of revision petitioner/J.Dr. that respondent/D.Hr.

already filed execution petition in OEP No.184 of 2001 for attachment

of his salary wherein a sum of Rs.28,500/- is recovered, which amount is

not deducted in the present execution petition filed by the D.Hr.

4. Before executing Court, the respondent/D.Hr. examined himself

as P.W.1 and no documents were marked. On behalf of the revision

petitioner/J.Dr. he himself was examined as R.W.1 and he also not

marked any documents.

5. After hearing both sides, executing Court partly allowed the

execution petition and ordered for detention of petitioner in civil prison

for a period of two months in realisation of amount mentioned in the

execution petition.

6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by executing Court, the present

revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/J.Dr. stating that the

execution petition filed by the respondent with two prayers in one

petition is not maintainable, which is liable to be dismissed. He submits

that execution petition is filed at the fag end of limitation as per the

Limitation Act to execute the decree, which itself shows the malafide

intention of D.Hr. He prays to allow the revision petition and dismiss

the execution petition.

7. I already heard learned counsels representing the parties at

length and as per the directions of this Court, both counsels have filed BSS,J C.R.P.No.4438 of 2017

calculation memos showing the amount due by the revision

petitioner/J.Dr. to the respondent/D.Hr.

8. As per the calculation memo filed by the respondent/D.Hr. after

deducting the amounts which already paid by the revision

petitioner/J.Dr. in previous execution petition and also as per interim

orders granted by this Court, revision petitioner/J.Dr. is still due an

amount of Rs.54,550/-. It is not in dispute that revision petitioner has

deposited Rs.42,150/- in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this

Court on 11.09.2017. In total, revision petitioner/J.Dr. paid an amount

of Rs.74,450/- towards part satisfaction of the decree obtained by the

respondent/D.Hr. During the hearing of the petition, learned counsel

for the revision petitioner/J.Dr. fairly submitted that revision

petitioner/J.Dr. is working in judicial department, getting salary and

when he consulted him, he said that he is not in a position to pay the

amount at a time and the respondent/D.Hr. has not said anything with

regard to his proposal to pay the amount by way of reasonable monthly

instalments by deducting from his salary. He would further submit that

revision petitioner/J.Dr. will oblige any orders passed by this Court and

he is leaving the matter to the discretion of the Court.

9. After considering the contentions raised by both sides, in view of

the fact that revision petitioner has paid substantial amount to satisfy

the decretal amount and the amount now due is only Rs.54,550/-, this BSS,J C.R.P.No.4438 of 2017

Court deems it fit to grant instalments to the J.Dr. for payment of the

execution petition amount.

10. In the result, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the

execution petition amount in 11 monthly instalments @ Rs.5,000/- per

month to the credit of O.S.No.1235 of 1998 on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, or directly deposit the monthly instalment

amount on or before 10th of every succeeding month to the credit of

bank account of the respondent/ decree-holder to be furnished to the

revision petitioner/judgment-debtor. It is made clear that if revision

petitioner/J.Dr failed to deposit two monthly instalments consecutively,

if he commits default, the orders passed by learned Prl.Junior Civil

Judge, Tirupathi, dated 24.08.2017 in execution petition shall come

into force.

11. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed

of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall

stand closed. Interim orders granted if any, shall stand vacated.

______________________ BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J Dt:22.12.2022.

Rns BSS,J C.R.P.No.4438 of 2017

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

C.R.P.No.4438 of 2017

Date: 22.12.2022

Rns