Telangana High Court
Kotha Sathaiah vs Chitneni Shobha on 15 April, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.351 OF 2024
Between:
Kotha Sathaiah
... Petitioner
And
Chitneni Shobha
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 15.04.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.351 OF 2024
% 15.04.2024
Between:
# Kotha Sathaiah
..... Petitioner
And
$ Chitneni Shobha
... Respondent
< Gist:
> Head Note:
!Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. N.Hari Prasad
^ Counsel for Respondent : Mr V.Rajender Rao
Cases Referred:
3
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.351 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr N.Hari Prasad, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mr V.Rajender Rao, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the
propriety and legality of the Order dated 09-01-2024 passed
in E.P.No. 32 of 2018 in O.S.No. 85 of 2017 by the Additional
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at
Mancherial Camp Court at Luxettipet, whereby the petition
filed by the Decree Holder under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Civil
Procedure Code was allowed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as they are arrayed in the execution proceedings before the
lower Court.
4. The decree holder filed E.P.No. 32 of 2018 seeking
direction to the Judgment Debtor to pay the decretal amount
of Rs.5,53,660/- and in default thereof to issue warrant of
arrest against the Judgment Debtor for his detention in civil
prison.
5. As can be seen from the affidavit of the decree holder in
support of the execution petition, the plea of the decree
holder is that he filed the suit against the Judgment Debtor
for recovery of money and the suit was settled before Lok
Adalat and Award dated 18-02-2018 was passed in favour of
the decree holder and that the Judgment Debtor is due to pay
decretal amount of Rs.5,53,660/- and the judgment debtor
has not paid the decretal amount though the judgment debtor
has means to pay it and that is why the decree holder filed
the execution petition for his arrest and detention.
6. The judgment debtor filed counter admitting the fact
that the suit was settled before Lok Adalat and the Award was
passed, the judgment debtor however, could not sell his
properties, and hence, the judgment debtor could not pay the
decretal amount and that the judgment debtor is ready to pay
the said decretal amount, if six months time is granted.
7. During the enquiry, the decree holder examined herself
as PW1 and got marked four documents. The judgment
debtor did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
8. After considering the evidence on record and after
hearing both sides, the lower Court came to the conclusion
that the judgment debtor though has sufficient means failed
to pay the decretal amount and accordingly, ordered the
detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison for a period of
two months on payment of process and subsistence
allowance.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the executing Court,
the judgment debtor preferred the present revision petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD
10. There is no dispute about the fact that the judgment
debtor is due to pay the decretal amount. The only plea taken
by the judgment debtor is that the judgment debtor could not
pay the decretal amount for the reason that the judgment
debtor could not sell his properties and the judgment debtor
is ready to pay the amount, if six months time is granted. The
decree holder filed the suit in the year 2017 and got attached
the house property bearing Door No. 3-424/7 of the judgment
debtor and the same is evident from Ex.P.3 of Order in
I.A.No. 370 of 2017 in O.S. No. 85 of 2017. But the judgment
debtor disobeying the order of attachment, sold away that
property to third parties vide Ex.P.1 Sale Deed which shows
that the property was sold for Rs.45 lakhs. From this, it is
quite clear that the judgment debtor sold the property during
the pendency of the suit and prior to filing of the said
execution petition. Therefore, it follows that the judgment
debtor had sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. The
plea of the judgment debtor seeking extension of six months
time is not acceptable for the simple reason that the
executing court cannot go beyond the decree by ordering
extension of time for payment of the decretal amount. Since
the judgment debtor failed to pay the decretal amount even
though he had got sufficient means to pay it, the executing
Court rightly ordered the judgment debtors civil arrest and
detention.
11. For the foregone reasons, this Court does not find any
impropriety or illegality or irregularity in the impugned order
dated 09.01.2024 passed in E.P.No.32 of 2018 in O.S.No.85
of 2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant
Sessions Judge at Mancherial Camp Court at Luxettipet and
accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Dated: 15.04.2024
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
b/o
kvrm
