Sri K. Jayakumar

1 Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI G. GOPICHAND, B.SC., MA., LL.M.,

III ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE.

Monday, the 26th day of December, 2016.

E.P.No.158/2016 in AOP.No.484/2014.

Between:-

M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Piduguralla Branch. Rep., by its Divisional Manager/ G.P.A. Holder M. Rama Rao. …. Decree Holder.

And

1. Shaik Saithulla, S/o Basha, Muslim, 40 years, Door No.4-159, Near Sivalayam, Piduguralla, Guntur Dt.

2. Shaik Masthan Vali, S/o Mabhu Subhani, Muslim, 35 years, Door No.16-266, Behind Church, Piduguralla. … Judgment Debtors.

This Petition came up on 14-12-2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Sarath Babu, Advocate for the Decree Holder, and the Judgment Debtors remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This E.P is filed Under Order 21 Rule 37 and 38 CPC for arrest of the Judgment Debtor No.2 for non-payment of the amount awarded in AOP.No.484/2014.

2]The Divisional Manager-cum-GPA Holder of the Decree

Holder filed affidavit in support of the execution petition stating that, the

Decree Holder obtained award against the Judgment debtors on 30-05-2015 in AOP.No.484/2014 and thereafter the Decree Holder demanded the Judgment debtors to pay the amount covered by the said Award, but they failed to pay the amount and that the Judgment

Debtors are having movable and immovable properties but they are evading to pay the award amount to the Decree Holder. Hence, there is necessity for arrest of the judgment debtor No.2 and detain him in civil prison.

2 Fair 3] After registering this E.P a notice as contemplated under

Rule 37 of Order 21 CPC was issued to the 2nd Judgment Debtor. The said notice was served on 2nd Judgment debtor, but he remained exparte. Thereafter, the Decree Holder examined its Authorized

Person M. Murali Krishna as P.W.1 and he filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed along with the E.P and also further stating that the 2nd Judgment Debtor is having RCC roofed residential building worth Rs.6,00,000/- and he is also running cycle shop and getting income of Rs.30,000/- per month and he is also doing private finance business and getting income of

Rs.20,000/- per month. Thus the 2nd Judgment debtor is having sufficient means to pay the award amount, but he is intentionally avoiding to pay the said amount.

4]Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the Decree

Holder.

5]Now, the point for consideration is,

Whether a warrant for the arrest of the Judgment Debtor

No.2 can be issued ?

6] POINT:-

Even though as per Rule 37 of Order 21 CPC this Court is competent to issue a warrant for the arrest of the Judgment Debtor for his production before this Court, this Court has issued only a notice to the Judgment Debtor No.2 asking him to appear before this Court to show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison. But the

Judgment Debtor No.2 has not made his appearance in obedience to the said notice.

7] As per the record it is clear that the Decree Holder filed

AOP.No.484/2014 before the sole Arbitrator N. Durga Prasad,

Advocate & Notary and as per the said award the Judgment debtors are liable to pay a sum of Rs.92,866/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.73,242/- and also costs.

3 Fair 8] According to P.W.1 the Judgment Debtor No.2 is having sufficient means to pay the decree amount. But basing on the evidence of P.W.1 the Judgment debtor No.2 can not be detained in civil prison for any particular period. The enquiry that has to be conducted for effecting the arrest of any Judgment Debtor is provided in Rule 40 of Order 21 CPC. As per the said Rule any enquiry regarding the means of the Judgment Debtor has to be conducted in his presence only. But as the Judgment Debtor No.2 failed to appear

before this Court after receiving the notice issued to him, there is need

for issuing warrant for the arrest of the Judgment Debtor No.2 for limited purpose of securing his presence for conducting enquiry in the

E.P. So, this point is answered accordingly.

9]IN THE RESULT, issue arrest warrant against Judgment

Debtor No.2 for his production for participating in the enquiry that would be conducted as per the provisions of Rule 40 of Order 21 CPC.

Call on 14-02-2017.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of December, 2016.

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

–

Witnesses examined

-- On behalf of Decree Holder: P.W.1 – M. Murali Krishna.

On behalf of Judgment Debtors: -- Nil –

Documents Marked

-- On behalf of Decree Holder: – NIL --

On behalf of Judgment Debtors: -- Nil –

III A.D.J. Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SMT. SIRIPURAPU SREEDEVI,

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Friday, the 28th day of September, 2018.

EP 307/17 in MVOP 1052/02

Between:

1. Koppula Salemma.

2. Koppula Pitchi Reddy.... Petitioners/D.Hrs

-And-

1. V.Siva Reddy.

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Guntur.

… Respondents/J.Drs

This E.P. came up on 27-9-2018 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri R.Sanjeevareddy, advocate for D.Hrs and Sri B.Krishna Kishore, advocate for 1st J.Dr and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The D.Hrs filed this E.P. against the 1st J.Dr. under Order 21 Rules 54, 66 and 64 of CPC praying the court to attach and conduct sale of EP schedule property for the recovery of amount covered by EP and the brief case of the D.hrs as per the affidavit given by the 1st D.Hr in support of EP is as follows:

The D.hrs filed MVOP 1052/02 against the J.Drs for compensation and the court passed it’s order in favour of

D.hrs. After the decree, the 1st J.Dr paid part payment of

Rs.1,90,000/- and later on failed to discharge the amount and the 1st J.Dr has to pay Rs.3,68,077/- to them. The 1st J.Dr is 2 having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. Hence the D.Hrs filed the EP seeking attachment and sale of EP schedule property.

2.The 1st J.Dr filed counter praying the court to dismiss the

E.P. by denying the averments made in the E.P. specifically and the brief contents of it are as follows:

It is mainly contended that the schedule property does not belong to 1st J.r. The boundaries furnished in the schedule are not correct. The 1st J.Dr has no properties in his name and he is not doing any job. He has been suffering from severe health problems, who is living at the mercy of his brother and sister. There is no source of income to him.

3.Now the points for consideration are:

1.Whether the EP schedule property is liable to be attached?

2.To what relief?

4.Heard the learned counsel for the D.hrs and the 1st J.Dr.

5.POINT No.1:

Both the learned counsel for the D.hrs and the 1st J.Dr reaffirmed the respective contentions of both parties to the proceedings during the course of their arguments in all material particulars.

3

6.The learned counsel for the D.hrs argued that though they obtained an award in their favour in MVOP 1052/02 dt.11-6-2010 against the 1st J.Dr and though the 1st J.Dr made part payment of Rs.1,90,000/-, he failed to pay the balance amount inspite of demands made by the D.hrs.

7.Perused the affidavit filed in support of EP and the contents of the counter filed on behalf of 1st J.Dr. The 1st J.Dr mainly contended that the EP schedule property does not belong to him and that the boundaries furnished to the schedule are not correct. It is not in dispute that he failed to pay the balance amount to the D.hrs after paying Rs.1,90,000/- as alleged by the D.hrs. Being the court of execution, it’s duty is to see that the fruits of decree shall be delivered to D.hrs.

Except the contention of the 1st J.Dr that he has no salable interest over the EP schedule property, he has not filed any proof in support of his contention. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of EP show that the schedule property stands in the name of 1st J.Dr and therefore, the schedule property is liable to be attached. There are no tenable grounds in the counter filed by the 1st J.Dr.

Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

8.POINT No.2:

IN THE RESULT, it is held that the EP schedule property is liable to be attached. Issue Rule 54 attachment of E.P.

4 schedule immovable property of 1st J.Dr on payment of process.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28th day of September, 2018.

III Addl. District Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL.

III ADJ.

1 Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI G. GOPICHAND, B.SC., MA., LL.M.,

III ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE.

Thursday, the 5th day of January, 2017.

E.P.No.138/2016 in AOP.No.876/2013.

Between:-

M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Narasaraopet Branch, Rep., by its Divisional Manager/GPA Holder, M. Rama Rao. …. Decree Holder.

And

1. J. Srinivasa Rao, S/o Chennaiah, Hindu, 39 years, Door No.768, Suddanagunta Bazar, Piduguralla, Guntur Dt.

2. Chandu Mukkanteswara Rao, S/o Badraiah, 42 years, Door No.1-100/A, Suddanagunta Bazar, Piduguralla, Guntur Dt. … Judgment Debtors.

This Petition came up on 4-1-2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Sarath Babu, Advocate for the Decree Holder, and Sri Ch. Venkata Rao, Advocate for Judgment Debtor No.2, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This E.P is filed under Order 21 Rules 43 and 66 CPC for the attachment of the movable properties of J.Dr.No.2 for realization of the amount awarded in AOP.No.876/2013.

2]In the affidavit filed by the Divisional Manager-cum-GPA

Holder of the Decree Holder, it is averred that, the Decree Holder obtained an award and later he demanded the Judgment debtors to pay the award amount, but they failed to pay the same, and that the

Judgment Debtor No.2 is having movable properties and so for realization of the award amount there is need for attachment of the movable properties of Judgment debtor No.2.

3] After registering the execution petition, a notice was issued to the Judgment debtor No.2 and after receipt of the notice the 2 Fair 2nd Judgment Debtor appeared through his counsel and filed counter contending that the Judgment Debtors availed loan for purchase of an auto rickshaw and paid some payments, later the Decree holder seized the said vehicle and sold the same in public auction without any intimation to the Judgment Debtors and it also filed AOP without notice to the Judgment debtors, and the Judgment debtors are not having movable properties mentioned in the schedule and the judgment debtors are not liable to pay any amount to the Decree Holder.

4]No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by both parties.

5)Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the Decree

Holder and learned counsel for Judgment debtor No.2 and perused the counter filed by Judgment Debtor No.2.

6)Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Decree Holder is entitled for the attachment

and sale of movable properties of the 2 nd J.Dr., for realization of

the award amount in AOP.No.876/2013 ?

7]POINT :-

As per the record it is clear that the Decree Holder filed

AOP.No.876/2013 before the sole Arbitrator T. Sarada Rani, and obtained award dated 30-05-2015 whereunder the Judgment Debtors are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,91,973/- with subsequent interest and costs. It is not the case of the Judgment Debtor No.2 that subsequent to the passing of the award he paid any amount to the

Decree Holder. The Judgment Debtors have not taken any steps for setting aside the said award. So, the Decree Holder is entitled to execute the said award. The Judgment Debtor No.2 in his counter has mentioned that he is not having possession of the movable properties mentioned in the schedule. But he has not mentioned as to what are the movable properties possessed by him. The other objections raised by the judgment debtor No.2 in his counter are not tenable and hence 3 Fair they are over ruled. So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Decree Holder is entitled for attachment and sale of the movable properties of the judgment Debtor No.2 as prayed for. So, this point is answered in favour of the Decree Holder.

8]IN THE RESULT, the objections raised by the J.Dr.No.2 are overruled. Issue attachment warrant against the movable properties of the Judgment Debtor No.2 mentioned in the schedule.

Call on 9-3-2017.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of January, 2017.

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

–

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side.

III A.D.J. Guntur.