Smt.M.Sobha,JCJ,Tadipatri

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TADIPATRI

Present: Smt M.SOBHA, Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri. Friday, the 14th day of June, 2019.

E.P.83/2015 in O.S.No.229 of 2013

K.Pedda Thirupalaiah, S/o K.Maddaiah, Aged about 37 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R.S.Rangapuram village, Bethemcherlamandal,Kurnool District.

...Decree Holder/Petitioner

Vs

Gutha Krishna Sagar, S/o Jaya Naidu, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Business, R/o Thutralla Kothapalli village, Rama Raju Post, Yadiki Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

…Judgment Debtor/Respondent

This Execution Petition is coming on this the 7th day of June, 2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.Prathapa Reddy, Advocate for the Decree Holder/Petitioner and Sri C.Rameshnatha Reddy, Advocate for the Judgment Debtor/Respondent and this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This Execution Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Decree Holder under

Order 21 Rule 37, 38 and 40 of Code of Civil Procedure against the

Respondent/Judgment Debtor for realization of the Execution Petition amount.

2.It is the contention of the Petitioner in his petition affidavit that he is decree holder in the above said suit and he filed the present execution petition for realization of the execution petition amount. According to the petitioner the respondent is having house property, ready cash and gold jewelery. Further he is doing business and earning an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum and he is having sufficient means to pay the execution petition amount. According to the petitioner the respondent purposefully evading to pay the execution petition amount. Hence prays to issue Rule 37 notice to the respondent and if he fails to pay the execution petition amount commit him to civil prison for realization of the execution petition amount.

2

3.The respondent filed his counter by denying the case of the petitioner.

According to the respondent, he is not having any means to pay the execution petition amount and he is not having any movable or immovable properties of his own and eking out his livelihood by doing agricultural labour work. Hence the execution petition for arrest is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

He also contended that the petitioner never made any demands for payment of decreetal amount before filing of this execution petition and the petitioner also never issued any prior notice to the respondent. According to the respondent he also preferred an appeal at Hon'ble District Court, Kurnool and he is also not having sound state of health and so he cannot be arrested and detained in civil prison. He also contended that the interest calculated is not correct one and there are no merits to allow the petition. Hence prays to dismiss the execution petition.

4.During the course of enquiry on behalf of the petitioner, he himself entered into witness box and examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

The respondent also entered into witness box and examined as RW.1 and no documentary evidence marked on his behalf.

5.Heard arguments on both sides.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is that:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed by

him?

7.Point:-

(a).According to the petitioner as PW.1, he is the decree holder in the above said suit and after the decree also he made several demands calling upon the respondent for payment of decreetal amount before filing of this execution petition but the respondent failed to repay the amount. According to

PW.1, the respondent is having ready cash in his hand and also doing banana business in Rayalacheruvu area and he is having Ac.1-82 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.7 in Konapuram village and he is having Ac.0.98 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.15 in Konapuram village fields and he is getting an 3 income nearly Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. To prove the means and capacity of respondent, the PW.1 also filed and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 which are True

Extract of Form 1-B issued by the Tahasildar, Peddavaduguru, Adangal No.3 account for the fasli 1425 to the Sy.No.15 of Konapuram village fields and Ex.P3 is the Adangal No.3 Account for the fasli 1425 in Sy.No.7 of Konapuram village fields. So as per the evidence of PW.1 the respondent is having agricultural lands and also getting sufficient income to discharge the execution petition amount but wantonly evading to pay the same.

(b). The respondent also entered into witness box and examined as

RW.1, to show that he is not getting any sufficient income to discharge the execution petition amount. He testified that he is not the sole owner of Ac.1.82 cents of land in Sy.No.7 and an extent of Ac.0.98 cents in Sy.No.15 of

Konapuram village fields and said land belongs to his family members and they are also having equal share in the above said land. He also testified that the said land is totally dry land and not getting any amount through the land. He also deposed that his family members are totally depending upon him to maintain their livelihood. He also testified that he preferred an appeal before

Hon'ble District Court, Kurnool against the decree and same is pending. In the

cross examination he admitted that he is having land to an extent of Ac.1.82 cents of land in Sy.No.7 and also an extent of Ac.0.98 cents of land at Sy.No.15 of Konapuram village fields. He denied the suggestion that in between him and

Decree Holder there are money transactions. Though RW.1 testified that he preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble District Court, Kurnool over the decree and judgment in the above said suit, but he did not file any documentary proof to show that he preferred an appeal and also not filed any stay proceedings relating to this execution petition. Further he categorically admitted that he is having agricultural lands at Konapuram village, it appears that the respondent though having immovable properties of his own and getting sufficient income to discharge the execution petition amount, but wantonly evading to pay the same.

4

(c).As already discussed the petitioner as PW.1 by adducing his oral evidence and also documentary evidence i.e. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 clearly reveals that the respondent is having immovable properties i.e. agricultural lands and getting sufficient income through the said lands. Thus the petitioner as PW.1 clearly proves the means and capacity of respondent to pay the execution petition amount. Particularly the respondent also admitted in the cross examination about his possession and enjoyment of the agricultural lands. In view of admission made by the respondent about his earning capacity through the agricultural lands, this court hold that the respondent is having means to discharge execution amount but evading to pay the same. Hence the petitioner entitled for the relief as prayed by him.

In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed, issue arrest warrant against the Judgment Debtor on payment of process.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court this the 14th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- Smt M.SOBHA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADIPATRI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER:- RESPONDENT

PW.1:- K.Pedda TirupalaiahRW.1-B.Madhava Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

Ex.A-1True Extract of Form 1-B issued by the--- Tahasildar, Peddavaduguru

Ex.A-2Adangal No.3 account for the fasli 1425 to--- the Sy.No.15 of Konapuram village fields

Ex.A-3Adangal No.3 Account for the fasli 1425 in--- Sy.No.7 of Konapuram village fields

Id/- M.S., JCJ TDP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TADIPATRI

Present: Smt M.SOBHA, Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri. Friday, the 28th day of June, 2019.

E.P.56/2016 in O.S.No.54 of 2016

Gummadisani Malleswara Reddy, S/o G.Narapa Reddy, Hindu, Aged 39 years, Agriculturist, Resident of Bukkapatnam village, R.S.Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District.

...Decree Holder/Petitioner

Vs

JogaRamaGovindu,S/o J.Lakshmanna, Hindu, Aged 54 years, Business, Resident of D.No.8/411, VivekanandaNagar,Behind Saraswathi Vidya Mandir, Tadipatri Town, Anantapuramu (District).

…Judgment Debtor/Respondent

This Execution Petition is coming on this the 28th day of June, 2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.Prathapa Reddy, Advocate for the Decree Holder/Petitioner and Sri N.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Judgment Debtor/Respondent and this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is the Execution Petition filed by the Decree Holder/Petitioner against the Respondent/Judgment Debtor under Order 21 Rules 37, 38 and 40 of Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to issue rule 37 notice to the respondent for realization of Execution Petition amount and if he fails to pay the Execution Petition amount, commit him to civil prison in the interests of justice.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner in his petition affidavit that he is the decree holder in the above said suit which was passed against the respondent on 19-04-2016 and after decree also he made several demands calling upon the respondent for payment of decreetal amount but the respondent did not come forward to pay the same. According to the petitioner the respondent is having landed properties, ready cash and gold jewelery of his own and also he is doing business and the respondent is having sufficient means to pay 2 execution petition amount but purposefully evading to pay the same. Hence the execution petition.

3.The respondent filed his counter contending that he is suffering from diabetes, heart problem and he has to take regular medical treatment and regularly using medicines and if the Hon'ble Court ordered to sent him, he may not get treatment for his ill health. Further he contended that he has no means to pay execution petition amount and he simply sitting an idle and his wife is working as house maid and with her earnings only the respondent is eking out his livelihood. Further he contended that the petitioner has not made any demands calling upon him for payment of decreetal amount. Hence the respondent prays to dismiss the execution petition in the interest of justice.

4.During the course of enquiry the petitioner himself examined as PW.1, another witness examined as PW.2 and no documents marked. On behalf of the respondent, he himself entered into witness box and examined as RW.1. No documents marked on his behalf.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is that:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed by

him?

7.Point:-

(a).It is the evidence of petitioner as PW.1 that after passing of decree he approached the respondent for payment of decreetal amount amount but he has been evading to pay the same, though the respondent is having ready cash, gold jewelery and lands in his name, and also the respondent is having sufficient means to pay the execution petition amount. The respondent is hale and healthy and he is not suffering with any disease. Hence PW.1 prays to commit the respondent to civil prison for realization of execution petition amount.

3

(b).In support of his contention he also examined one of the independent witness as PW.2. PW.2 testified that the respondent is having sufficient means to pay the execution petition amount and the respondent is also having sufficient means and financial capacity to pay the execution petition amount and since the beginning the respondent is purposefully evading to pay the execution petition amount to harass the petitioner.

According to PW.2 the respondent is hale and healthy person. So as per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 though the respondent is having good health and having capacity to pay the execution petition amount but failed to repay the decreetal amount. Both the witnesses were suggesting that the respondent has no means to pay the execution petition amount.

(c).On the other hand, to prove his contention the respondent entered into witness box and examined as RW.1. According to him he is suffering from diseases, heart problem and used to take regular medical treatment and no movable and immovable properties of his own and due to his ill health he is not in a position to attend agricultural cooly works and depending on his wife's house maid earnings and prays to dismiss the same. In the cross examination he admitted that his marriage was performed with the daughter of one Siva

Prasad who is the attender in irrigation department and he also admitted that he did not file any record to show that he is suffering from illness. In the cross examination he also admitted that he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner in the year 2013 for his medical expenses.

(d).The respondent as RW.1 though contended that he is suffering with ill health but did not file any medical reports to show his illness. Further his evidence discloses that the marriage of his daughter was performed and also his son had completed graduation at Tirupathi and in view of his own admission that he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner in the year 2013 but failed to repay the same after passing of decree. The evidence of petitioner as well as the respondent clearly shows that the respondent is having means to discharge the execution petition amount but wantonly evading to pay the same and failed to discharge the decreetal amount. Hence 4 the entire contention of the respondent is liable to be rejected. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed by him.

In the result, the Execution Petition is allowed. Issue Arrest Warrant under Order 21 Rule 38 of Code of Civil Procedure on payment of process. Call on 26-08-2019.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- Smt M.SOBHA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADIPATRI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER:- RESPONDENT

PW.1:- G.Malleswara ReddyRW.1:- Joga Rama Govindu

PW.2:- V.Bala Peddi Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER:- RESPONDENT -None-- None -

Id/- M.S., JCJ TDP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TADIPATRI

Present: Smt M.SOBHA, Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

Thursday, the 18th day of July, 2019.

E.P.45/2017 in O.S.No.51 of 2018

Mooli Venkatarami Reddy, S/o M.Konda Reddy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Putlur Chinthalapalli village, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

...Decree Holder/Petitioner

Vs

MooliMaheswaraReddy,S/o M.Venkata Rami Reddy, Hindu, Aged 38 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Putlur Chinthalapalli village, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

…Judgment Debtor/Respondent

This Execution Petition is coming on this the 17th day of July, 2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.Prathapa Reddy, Advocate for the Decree Holder/Petitioner and Sri N.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Judgment Debtor/Respondent and this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is the Execution Petition filed by the Decree Holder/Petitioner against the Respondent/Judgment Debtor under Order 21 rules 37, 38 and 40 of

Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to issue rule 37 notice to the respondent and if he fails to pay the Execution Petition amount and then arrest him and commit him to civil prison for realization of Execution Petition amount in the interests of justice.

2.It is the contention of the Petitioner in his petition affidavit that he is the decree holder in the above said suit and he filed above said Execution Petition against the respondent for arrest and for realization of decreetal amount.

According to the petitioner the respondent is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, except the said property, he is not having any other valuable properties and the respondent is going to alienate the execution schedule property nominally in the name of kith and kin. The petitioner further submitted that though the respondent is having sufficient means, but he purposefully evading to pay the decreetal amount and thereby cause troubles 2 to the petitioner in recovery of the decreetal debt. Hence he prays to issue rule 37 notice to the respondent even after issuance of rule 37 notice also if the respondent failed to pay the decreetal amount order for arrest of respondent and send him to the civil prison for realization of the Execution Petition amount.

3.The respondent who received rule 37 notice appeared before the Court and filed his counter stating that he is only an agricultural cooly and eking his livelihood by cooly work, therefore this execution petition for arrest of him is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He also contended that the petitioner has not made any demands on him to pay the decreetal amount

before filing of this petition and also not issued any prior notice to the

respondent prior to filing of this petition and finally prays to dismiss the

Execution Petition.

4.During the course of enquiry the petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 document. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent side.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is that:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed by

him?

7.Point:-

(a).It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the decree holder in the above said suit and obtained the same against the respondent and even after decree also the respondent failed to pay the decreetal amount though the respondent is having lands in Putlur village and mandal but purposefully evading to pay the decreetal amount. On the other hand the respondent contended that he is only an agricultural cooly and eking his livelihood by cooly work and he has no means to pay the decreetal amount.

(b).To prove the means of respondent, the petitioner filed and got marked Ex.P1 which is 1B Namuna to show that the immovable properties stands in the name of respondent at Putlur village and mandal. As per the 3 recitals in Ex.P1 the respondent is having lands in an extent of Ac.3.29 cents of

Putlur village, the respondent is having sufficient means to but failed to discharge the execution petition amount. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that the name mentioned in Ex.P1 as M.Venkata Maheswara

Reddy is not person/respondent. Though contended the respondent did not file any documentary proof to show that the name is not as same as mentioned in

Ex.P1. Apart from that the respondent not choose to enter into box and prove his contention. In the factual circumstances of the case, this court hold that the petitioner as PW.1 through oral and documentary evidence i.e. Ex.P1 proved the means and capacity of respondent. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed by him.

In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed. Issue arrest warrant against the Judgment Debtor on payment of process. Call on 12-09-2019.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court this the 18th day of July, 2019.

Sd/- Smt M.SOBHA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADIPATRI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER:- RESPONDENT

PW.1:- M.Venkatarami Reddy - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER:- RESPONDENT

- None -

Ex.P1:-Computerized1B Namuna (ROR) of Judgment Debtor obtained from Mee- seva, Putlur. Id/- M.S., JCJ TDP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TADIPATRI

Present: Smt M.SOBHA, Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri. Friday, the 10th day of May, 2019.

E.P.64/2018 in O.S.No.177 of 2015

Janapati Siva Sankar, S/o J.Lakshmi Narayana, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Business, R/o Tadipatri Town and Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

...Decree Holder/Petitioner

and

Bollupalli Sankar, S/o B.Obulesu, Hindu, aged about 33 years, ElementarySchoolTeacher, Thakkallapallivillage,Putluru Mandal, Resident of Tadipatri Town, Anantapuramu District.

…Judgment Debtor/Respondent

This Execution Petition is coming on this the 9th day of May, 2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Rameshnatha Reddy, Advocate for the Decree Holder/Petitioner and Sri R.C.Rajnikanth Reddy, Advocate for the Judgment Debtor/Respondent and this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This Execution Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Decree Holder U/O 21

Rule 48 of Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to attach the salary of the

Respondent/Judgment Debtor for realization of Execution Petition amount in the interests of justice.

2.The contents in the petition affidavit of the petitioner are that:-

He obtained decree in the above said suit against the respondent on 24-8-2017 and after passing of the decree he made several demands by calling upon the respondent for payment of decreetal amount. But the respondent did not come forward to pay the same. Hence he filed the present Execution

Petition. According to the petitioner, the respondent is working as Teacher at

Elementary School, Thakkallapalli village, Putlur Mandal of Anantapuramu

District and drawing an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. Further he is having 2 hard cash and gold jewelery, but the respondent is wantonly evading to pay the

Execution Petition amount. Accordingly the petitioner prays to attach a sum of

Rs.20,000/- per month from the salary of the respondent for realization of

Execution Petition amount in the interest of justice.

3.The Respondent/Judgment Debtor filed his counter by stating that the execution petition for attachment of the salary is not maintainable as there is no attachable portion in his salary and thus the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. He further stated that the Hon'ble court already attached the amount in some execution petitions and till the attachment is raised in the said execution petitions, the present petition is not maintainable. Hence prays to dismiss the execution petition.

4.During the course of enquiry no oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed by

him?

7.Point:-

It is the contention of the Petitioner that he is the decree holder in the above said suit and decree was passed against the respondent on 24-8-2017 and after passing of decree also he made several demands requesting the respondent for repayment of the amount. But the respondent wantonly evading to repay the same. He also contended that the respondent is working as

Teacher and earning salary of Rs.50,000/- per month apart from hard cash, jeweleries. According to the petitioner, the respondent is having sufficient means to pay the execution petition amount. On the other hand it is the contention of the respondent that though he is as an employee but he is getting no sufficient salary to discharge the execution petition amount. But record also discloses that the salary particulars of respondent was received from Garnishee and on perusal of salary particulars of respondent, no court 3 attachment has been shown and not mentioned any Execution Petition number.

Hence the contention of respondent is liable to be rejected. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed by him, and this point is answered in favour of the petitioner against the respondent.

In the result, the Execution Petition is allowed. Attach the salary of the respondent subject to Section 60 of Code of Civil Procedure on payment of process. Call on 9-7-2019.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court this the 10th day of May, 2019.

Sd/- Smt M.SOBHA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADIPATRI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR BOTH SIDES

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

-NIL-

Id/- M.S.,

JCJ

TDP

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :CC/0000216/2019 S.H.O. Peddapappur P.S. Vs S.Ramanjula Reddy

Date : 01-05-2019

Business: Both parties called present before lok adalath and the compromised the case. Hence, the accused is/are acquitted U/Sec.323 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked non/valuable property if any shall be destroyed forthwith. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 01-05-2019 Junior Civil Judge