M/S. Margadarsi Chit Funds ... vs M/S.Leo Trading Company ,
2023 Latest Caselaw 969 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                     C.R.P.No.7180 OF 2017
ORDER:

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated

19.09.2017 in E.P.No.159 of 2007 in O.S.No.223 of 2012, on the

file of the II-Additional District Judge, Warangal, wherein the said

petition filed by the petitioner-decree holder under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code

(for short, 'CPC') for realization of decree amount of Rs.28,50,849/-

by arrest and detention of JDr.Nos.3 and 5 in civil prison, was

dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for

the respondent No.3. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-decree holder filed E.P.No.159 of 2007 against

the respondents/judgment debtors for realization of Rs.28,50,849/-

under the decree in O.S.No.223 of 2002 by arrest and detention of

judgment debtor Nos.3 and 5 in civil prison. Subsequently, notice

was sent to JDrs.3 and 5 and it was reported that JDr.No.5 died.

JDr.No.3 was brought under arrest and the executing Court caused

enquiry about the means to satisfy the decretal amount. The trial

Court after following due procedure of law held that the revision

petitioner failed to give any reasons for not proceeding against the

properties of JDr.No.1 and 6 to 9 and it is not clear that the decree

holder left the said judgment debtors and seeking arrest and

detention of JDr.No.3 alone. With the said observations, the EP was

dismissed. Challenging the order, the present revision is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court

committed error in dismissing the EP without giving valid reasons

and he prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. The EP is filed for realization of an amount of Rs.28,50,849/-

which is due under decree dated 07.11.2005 in O.S.No.223 of 2002

against JDrNos.3 and 5 by arrest and detention in civil prison for

realization of the decretal amount. During the pendency of the

proceedings, JDr.No.5 died. On 28.07.2009, JDr.No.3 was brought

under arrest. The trial Court conducted enquiry as per the procedure

and mainly considered whether JDr.No.3 can be sent to civil prison

for non-payment of the decretal amount. The executing Court

examined Assistant Manager of the decree holder and marked

Exs.A-1 to A-5 on behalf of the decree holder and R.W.1s to 4 were

examined on behalf of JDr.No.3 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-11.

6. The executing Court in the order had examined the

documents produced by the decree holder and judgment debtor in

detail and after appreciation of the evidence on record gave findings

to the effect as to why the decree holder has not proceeded against

the properties of JDr.Nos.1, and 6 to 9. It was also observed that the

decree holder left JDr.Nos.1, and 6 to 9 and sought arrest and

detention of JDr.No.3 alone.

7. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the

decree holder failed to give any valid reasons as to why they were

specific in seeking arrest and detention of JDr.No.3 in civil prison

for realization of decretal amount instead of proceeding against the

properties of JDrs.1 and 6 to 9.

8. I do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the order of the

Court below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of

powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 27.02.2023 Lrkm