Sri P.panduranga Reddy

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: VINUKONDA

Present:- Sri P.Panduranga Reddy, M.A., LL.M., Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda.

MONDAY, THE 22 nd DAY OF JUNE, 2015

E.P.No.36/2014 in O.S.No.22/2010

BETWEEN

Ardalapudi Kondaiah S/o Guruswamy, Hindu, Aged 58 years, Cultivation, R/o Vellatur Village, Bollapalli Mandal.. . . Petitioner/D.Hr

AND

Thiriveedhi Yogaiah S/o Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, Aged 35 years, Business, R/o Vellatur Village, Bollapalli Mandal.. . . Respondent/J.Dr

Counsel for the Petitioner/D.Hr:Sri Chaganti Veeranjaneya Chowdray

Counsel for the Respondent/J.Dr:Sri M.Peraiah and Sri P.Srinivasa Rao

Date of enquiry:08-06-2015

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Order XXI, R.54, 66 and 64 of Civil Procedure Code for realization of decretal amount from the E.P schedule property by sale.

2.The brief facts set out in the petition and petition-affidavit are as follows:- The petitioner obtained decree against the respondent on 07-05- 2010 for an amount of Rs.60,200/- with subsequent interest and later inspite of repeated demands made by the petitioner, the respondent has filed to discharge decreetal amount though having sufficient means. The respondent has immovable properties apart from the petition schedule property and he has bank balance of Rs.1,50,000/-, but he refused to pay decreetal amount and trying to leave the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, hence this petition.

3.Counter filed by the respondent / JDr denying most of the averments of petition and contended that previously the petitioner had filed 2 execution petitions against him for arrest and the some were dismissed on merits by this court. The petition schedule property is not his property and he has no lands in his name. He filed Insolvency Petition on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Narasaraopet and the same is pending. Hence, the petition is

liable to be dismissed.

4.During the course of enquiry the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. On the other hand no evidence adduced and no documents were got marked by the respondent.

5.Heard on both sides and now the short point for consideration is:- Whether the petitioner is entitled for realization of the decreetal amount from the E.P. schedule property as prayed for ?

2

6.It is averred by the petitioner that he obtained decree against the respondent on 07-05-2010 and inspite of repeated demands made by him, the respondents failed to discharge decreetal amount and the E.P. schedule property is absolutely belongs to the respondents. On the other hand the respondent is contending that the E.P. schedule property is not belongs to him and he has no sufficient means to discharge decreetal amount. This being a petition for attachment and sale of the schedule property, burden lies on the petitioner to prove that 1) the respondent failed to discharge the decreetal amount though having sufficient means and 2) petition schedule property is the absolute property of the respondent and he has salable interest on it.

7.In his evidence P.W.1 clearly deposed that the respondent earned money of Rs.1,50,000/- from Chillies and he has bank balance. The respondent owned and possessed the petition schedule property and apart from that he owned an extent of Ac.3.00. He obtained title deed and pass book from the revenue authorities vide khata No.1728 and the revenue records are showing title of the respondent over the petition schedule property. In support of oral evidence the petitioner got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. As seen from the documents, it is cristal clear that the respondent has Ac.1.47 cents in survey no.299-3 of Vellaturu revenue village under khata No.1728. Therefore evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documents Exs.P.1 to P.3 goes to reveal that E.P. schedule property is the absolute property of respondent. On the other hand the respondent simply contended that he has no sufficient means and the E.P. schedule property is not belongs to him. But in support of his case no evidence adduced by the respondent. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 the respondent put a suggestion that the E.P. schedule property is belongs to his father. But no evidence and no documents were got marked by the respondent to prove it. Therefore, mere contention of the respondent not supported by the evidence cannot be believed. Moreover, it is not the case of respondent that he discharged decreetal amount to the petitioner.

8.Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed supra, it can be safely concluded that the respondent, though having sufficient means, failed to discharge decreetal amount. Therefore the petitioner is certainly entitled for attachment and sale of the E.P. schedule property for realization of the decreetal amount. Accordingly point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

9.In the result the petition is allowed and attachment against the E.P schedule property is hereby made absolute.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of June, 2015.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VINUKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Petitioner:- For Respondent:- NIL

P.W.1:Ardalapudi Kondaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

3

For Petitioner:-

Ex.P.1 is 1-B Namuna dt.29-11-2014 Ex.P.2 is copy of Adangal dt.29-11-2014 Ex.P.3 is attested copy of 1-B abstract (no objection reported).

For Respondent:- NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VINUKONDA

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: VINUKONDA

Present:- Sri P.Panduranga Reddy, M.A., LL.M., Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda.

FRIDAY, THE 25 th DAY OF APRIL, 2014

E.P.No.27/2012 in O.S.No.314/2005

BETWEEN

M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Vinukonda, Rep. by its Divisional Manager Sk.Mastan Vali. . . Petitioner/D.Hr

AND

1. G.Prasanna Rani

2. G.Vijaya Bhaskar

3. G.Mangaiah

4. Bathula Venkateswarlu

5. B.Abbireddy. . . Respondents 2 to 5/J.Drs 2 to 5

Counsel for the Petitioner/D.Hr:Sri T.Hanumantha Rao

Counsel for the Respondent No.5/J.Dr.5 :Sri A.Ajay Babu

Respondents 2 and 4/J.Drs 2 and 4:Exparte

Respondent No.3/J.Dr No.3:Dismissed on 2-4-2014

Date of enquiry:23-04-2014

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Order XXI, R.22, and 48 of Civil Procedure Code calling upon the Respondents 2 to 5/J.Drs 2 to 5 to show cause why the decree dt.15-04-2008 should not be executed against them.

2.The brief facts set out in the petition and petition-affidavit are as follows:-

The petitioner had obtained decree against the respondents on 15-04-2008 for an amount of Rs.93,420/- with subsequent interest. In spite of repeated demands made by the petitioner, the respondents have failed to discharge the decretal amount. The 2nd respondent is working as a teacher and drawing Rs.15,000/- per month, the 3rd

Respondent is as a Secondary Grade teacher at Yaddanapudi and drawing an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month, the 4th respondent is working as a Secondary Grade

Teacher at Epuripalem and drawing Rs.15,000/- per month and the 5th J.Dr is working as attender in Deputy Engineer Office, Tripurantakam and drawing Rs.10,000/- per month. The Respondents 2 to 5 have capacity to discharge decretal debt and they have own house property and bank balance, but refused to pay the decretal amount.

Hence this petition.

2

3.The Respondents 2 and 4/J.Drs 2 and 4 remained exparte and the petition against Respondent No.3/J.Dr No.3 is dismissed on 2-4-2014.

4.Counter filed by the Respondent No.5/J.Dr No.5, denying most of the averments of petition and contended that the D.Hr had not assigned valid reasons for not filing

E.P within two years. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.During the course of enquiry, no oral evidence adduced and no documents were got marked by the parties to the petition.

6.Heard on both sides and now the short point for consideration is:- whether the petitioner is entitled for execution of decree dt.15-4-2008 against the salaries of Respondents 2, 4 and 5?

7.This being a petition filed under Or.XXI, R.22 of C.P.C., the petitioner has to prove that the respondents, though having sufficient means, failed to discharge decretal amount. Likewise the respondents have to show cause, why the decree should not be executed against them. As per the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is working as a teacher and drawing Rs.15,000/- per month, the 3rd Respondent is as a

Secondary Grade teacher at Yaddanapudi and drawing an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month, the 4th respondent is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher at Epuripalem and drawing Rs.15,000/- per month and the 5th J.Dr is working as attender in Deputy

Engineer Office, Tripurantakam and drawing Rs.10,000/- per month and they have failed to discharge the decretal amount though having sufficient means. On the other hand, the 5th Respondent contended that the D.Hr has no any valid reasons for his failure to file E.P within two years. However, at this stage the Court has to see that whether the Respondents has sufficient cause to oppose execution of decree. In this concern, as I discussed supra no sufficient cause is raised by the respondents to prevent the petition from getting execution of decree, dt.15-04-2008.

8.In view of my discussion supra, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner can be permitted for execution of decree against the salaries of Respondents 2, 4 and

5. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondents 2, 4 and 5.

6.In the result, the petition is allowed and issue notice to the respondents 2, 4 and 5 Order XXI, R.48 of C.P.C and call for salary particulars of the Respondents 2, 4 and 5 on payment of process. Call on 10-6-2014.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2014.

Sd/- Sri P.Panduranga Reddy,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VINUKONDA

3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

(No oral and documentary evidence adduced by either side)

Sd/- Sri P.Panduranga Reddy,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VINUKONDA

// True Copy //

Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda.