B Sreenivas vs Grampanchayat Of V.Kota
2023 Latest Caselaw 5215 AP

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
                         CRP.No.84 of 2017
O R D E R:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

21.10.2016 in OEP.No.14 of 2014 in O.S.No.152 of 2003 passed by

the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner.

The OEP.No.14 of 2014 was filed under Order 21 Rules 37 and

38 of C.P.C., seeking for arrest and detention of petitioner/judgment

debtor for deliberate nonpayment of decretal amount in O.S.No.152 of

2003. The petitioner/judgment debtor filed his counter contending

that he runs a small provisional store in the suit schedule property

which was subsequently handed over to the decree

holder/Grampanchayat and that he is residing in a rented house and

does not have means to pay the decretal amount. It was also

mentioned that the judgment debtor is dependant on his wife, who is

working as a Teacher in a private school. The trial Court conducted

enquiry, wherein the decree holder examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got

marked Ex.P.1. The petitioner/ judgment debtor examined R.Ws.1

and 2 and marked Exs.R.1 to R.3 in support of his claim. The trial

Court, apart from considering the depositions of the witnesses, relied

on Ex.P.1 which is a certified copy of a partition deed dated

09.11.1998, whereunder the petitioner/judgment debtor got landed

property in a partition between himself and his family members, i.e.

father and brother. Though the petitioner pleaded that the property

derived under Ex.P.1 was sold to others vide Exs.R.1 to R.3, the trial

Court on verification of Exs.R.1 to R.3 i.e., certified copies of sale

deeds dated 21.01.1999, 01.12.2004 and 24.12.2013, which shows

that property of Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.22/2B and an extent of

Ac.0.06 cents in Sy.No.88/2 were retained by the petitioner/judgment

debtor. Therefore, the trial Court negatived the plea of the

petitioner/judgment debtor that he does not have sufficient means to

discharge the decretal amount. It is to be noted that the decree of the

trial Court is dated 30.03.2012 and the sale deed executed by the

petitioner/judgment debtor vide Ex.R.3 is dated 24.12.2013 i.e.

subsequent to the adjudication of liability of the petitioner.

Therefore, the plea of the petitioner/judgment debtor that he

does not have sufficient means cannot be taken into consideration and

as such this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the

trial Court.

The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to

costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand

dismissed.

_____________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J Date: 31.10.2023 KLP