Telangana High Court
Mr. V. Gokul Ramana vs Mr. M. Arvinda Reddy on 21 June, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1512 of 2024
ORDER:
The present is the Civil Revision Petition which has been filed
assailing the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the V Additional
District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar in E.P.No.608 of 2018 in
CC.No.826 of 2013. Vide impugned order, the Court below has allowed
the E.P and issued arrest warrant against the Judgment-debtor (J.Dr),
the petitioner herein under Order 21 Rule 38 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short "C.P.C.") to commit the petitioner to civil
imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. It this order which is under challenge before this Court. Primary
contention of counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner does not have
any source of income and he is living the life of poverty and therefore,
the process adopted by the respondent in filing the E.P. and availing
the recourse under Order 21 Rule 38 of CPC is not proper, legal and
justified. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner candidly accepts and admits that CC.No.862 of 2013 on the
complaint lodged by the Decree-holder for the offence punishable
under Section 420 IPC vide FIR.No.671 of 2013 registered at Uppal
Police Station. The matter came-up for hearing before III Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. Pending the dispute before the
same Court, settlement was struck between the petitioner herein and
the complainant and the matter was referred to Lok-Adalat that was
held on 18.01.2017. As per the settlement arrived at between the
petitioner and the complainant, the petitioner would make payment of
Rs.16.00 lakhs on or before 30.04.2017 and in the light of the said
settlement, Lok-Adalat award was passed on 18.01.2017. Though
award was passed on 18.01.2017, till date, the same has not been
honoured by the petitioner, so far as part of the settlement is
concerned. This lead to the filing of E.P. by the Decree-
holder/complainant and the impugned order, now has been passed in
the said E.P., wherein the E.P. stands allowed and arrest warrant has
been ordered to be issued under Order 21 Rule 38 of C.P.C. ordering
for civil prison for a period of three months to the petitioner.
3. From the perusal of the impugned order, certain facts which
stands reflected is that the petitioner is a highly qualified person and
he is the Director of two of the companies. Further in the course of
proceedings, it has been reflected that the petitioner is also spending
an amount of more than Rs.17.00 lakhs towards the education of his
three children. In addition to the said, what is also reflected is that the
house which is occupied by the petitioner and which is in his name
itself worth more than a crore. Surprisingly, even though award of the
Lok-Adalat was passed on 18.01.2017 what is reflected is that the
petitioner has not paid a single penny even to show his bonafides that
he is willing to discharge his liability by payment in installments.
4. In the aforesaid given factual matrix of the case, which stands
unrebutted and undisputed, this Court does not find any strong case
made out by the petitioner seeking for interference to the impugned
order dated 01.08.2024 in EP.No.608 of 2018 in C.C.No.826 of 2013.
5. The Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits and deserves to
be and is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
21.06.2024
Nvl
