Telangana High Court
V Venkata Ratnam Alias Raja vs Ch. Hari Hara Bahu on 4 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.721 of 2024
ORDER:
Challenging the order dated 02.02.2024 passed in
E.P.No.86 of 2016 in O.S.No.129 of 2005 by the learned III
Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the
present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the decree holder
filed E.P.No.86 of 2016 under Order XXI Rule 37 and 40 of
CPC to arrest and detain judgment debtor No.1 in civil prison
for executing the decree in O.S.No.129 of 2005. The decree
holder alleged that judgment debtor No.1 was purposefully
delaying the execution despite having sufficient means. The
judgment debtor opposed the petition, stating that he had no
movable or immovable properties, was not working due to
health reasons, and that the petition was barred by the
principle of res judicata. The trial court after hearing both
sides allowed the petition, holding that judgment debtor No.1
had willfully failed to pay the decree debt and had sufficient
means to pay at least a substantial portion of the decree
SKS,J
amount. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision
petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri R. Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Challa Srinivas,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
order of the lower court is unjust, contrary to the facts, and
inequitable and that the Court failed to consider the burden of
proof that the judgment debtor had sufficient means to pay
the decree amount and willfully refused to do so. He further
submitted that instead, it allowed the execution petition
without evidence or determination of the judgment debtor's
intent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the
trial Court ignored the testimony of the judgment debtor that
he lacked means to discharge the decree and overlooked the
fact that the decree holder's previous execution petition i.e.,
E.P.No.61 of 2009 was dismissed for default, rendering the
current petition barred by the principle of res judicata. He
contended that the trial Court failed to properly apply relevant
Supreme Court judgments, merely citing them without
SKS,J
discussion, thereby rendering its order vitiated by illegalities.
Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the
trial Court by allowing this civil revision petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the judgment debtor has been evading arrest
by providing false addresses, demonstrating a blatant
disregard for the court's process. He further submitted that
the arrest warrant of the Executing Court was initially sent to
two addresses in Secunderabad, but the Bailiff was unable to
locate the judgment debtor on 17.02.2024.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent noted that the
subsequent affidavit of the Judgment Debtor, which claimed a
different address, was false, as evidenced by the Bailiff's
report on 06.06.2024, stating that the judgment debtor had
vacated the premises long ago. He argued that this deliberate
attempt to mislead the Court constitutes fraud and abuse of
the process of the court. Therefore, he urged the court to take
necessary action and grant relief to the decree holder,
directing the judgment debtor to provide his current address,
and depositing a portion of the decree amount or furnishing
third-party security.
SKS,J
8. After considering the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on
record, this Court finds that the judgment debtor admitted to
managing his wife's jewellery business, earning a salary, and
engaging in private chit business. The decree holder produced
evidence i.e., Exs.P1 to P4 establishing means of judgment
debtor to pay a substantial portion of the decree debt, which
totaling to Rs.2,37,200/-. Despite this, J.Dr.No.1 failed to
provide sufficient evidence to disprove the claims of the decree
holder, except for oral denials and producing order copies
from earlier execution petitions.
9. Further, the earlier execution petition i.e., E.P.No.61 of
2009 was dismissed for default, not on merits, and therefore
does not operate as res judicata, which requires a final
decision on the merits of the case. Since the earlier petition
was not adjudicated on its merits, the principle of res judicata
does not bar the filing of the present execution petition.
Furthermore, the present petition is based on new facts and
evidence, including the admissions of J.Dr.No.1 and the
additional evidence of D.Hr., which were not considered in the
earlier petition. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality in the
SKS,J
order of the trial Court, and the revision petition is liable to be
dismissed.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
confirming the order dated 02.02.2024 passed in E.P.No.86 of
2016 in O.S.No.129 of 2005 by the learned III Senior Civil
Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 04.02.2025
SAI
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D. ORDER IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.721 of 2024
Date: 04.02.2025
SAI
