Sri.Dr.T.Srinivas Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLLAPUR

Wednesday this the 13 th day of February,2013

Present: Dr. T.Srinivasa Rao

M.A.,LL.M.,PGDIRPM.,Ph.D.

Junior Civil Judge,Kollapur.

E.P.No. 42 of 2011

Between:-

1. Chinthala Sshankaraiah s/o Chinthala Yerranna r/o Dagadapally village of Weepangandla Mandal died on 3-6-2012 as per L.Rs

2. C.Laxmidevamma w/o Late C.Shankaraiah age 65 yrs,occ.Agril,

3. C.venkatswamy s/o Late C.Shankaraiah age 44 yrs,occ.Agril,

4. C.Tirupathaiah s/o Late C.Shankaraiah age 42 yrs,occ.Agril,

5. C.Srinivasulu s/o Late C.Shankaraiah age 41 yrs,occ.Agril, All are r/o Dagadapally village of Weepangandla Mandal. …Decree Holders

Versus

Thulla Ramudu s/o T.Balaswamy age 42 yrs,occ.Agril, r/o Bollaram village of Pangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Judgment Debtor

This Case is coming before me in the presence of Sri.S.Baleeshwaraiah, Advocate for the Decree holders and Sri T.Siva Reddy, Advocate for the Judgment Debtor and having stood over for consideration and delivered the following:--

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed for recovery of money of Rs.1,04,591/- by way of EP proceedings basing on a decree in O.S.No.155/2009, Dt.12-8- 2010 and Appeal No. 6/2011 filed by the D.Hrs and it is allowed on 19-7-2011 and the petitioners being D.Hrs sought the relief to send the J.Dr for civil imprisonment for non-compliance of decree.

2. In the affidavit of the petitioner, it is mainly averred that the J.Dr has got sufficient means and property to pay the EP amount in lumpsum but avoided to pay the same.

3 The J.Dr appeared and a counter filed on his behalf wherein that the

J.Dr is poor agriculturist. That the J.Dr is dong coolie work and his entire family depends upon him. That the J.Dr has no means and property to pay the E.P. amount. That the D.Hrs have only to harass the J.Dr and file this E.P. for seeking arrest warrant.

4 In support of the contention of the D.Hr No.3 he himself as Pw1 was examined as witness and no document were marked. On the other hand the J.Dr called absent No representation. Hence respondent evidence treated as closed. As he did not turn-up in spite of sufficient opportunity was given. .

5 After closure of the evidence of both the parties, heard the counsel for parties who confined to their written contentions.

6 The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the J.Dr is having sufficient means but failed to pay the E.P. amount and hence he pray to arrest the J.Dr and send him to civil imprisonment.

7 Per contra, the learned counsel for the J.Dr vehemently contented that he has house and landed property and the petitioner can proceed on his property but not to resort for arrest.

8 Now the point for determination is whether the D.Hrs is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

9 (i)As seen from the evidence of Pw1 he stated that the J.Dr has got a house at Bollaram village and also Ac. 6-00 of landed property and getting an income of Rs. 50,000/- per annum on the agriculture. Thus the J.Dr is having sufficient means and property to pay the decreetal amount and he did not pay the decreetal amount intentionally and is liable to be arrested and detention in civil prison till he pays the decreetal amount.

During the course of cross examination nothing was elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Except by putting some bald suggestions.

(ii) So ,it is not is dispute that the J.Dr is having property and it is settled law that it is the option of the D.Hrs to seek either arrest or attachment of property. Hence the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered.

10 In the result, the petition is allowed. Issue order U/o 21 rule 38 CPC

Arrest warrant on process directing the Field Asst to arrest the J.Dr and bring him to the Court and in case the J.Dr fails to pay the E.P.

amount, he will be committed to Civil Prison for a period of one month on process warrant returnable on 30-4-2013

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of February,2013.

. Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

Appendix of evidence

For Decree Holders For Judgment Debtor

Pw1:C.Venkatswamy --Nil- Exhibits marked --Nil--

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLLAPUR

Friday this the 8 th day of February,2013

Present: Dr. T.Srinivasa Rao

M.A.,LL.M.,PGDIRPM.,Ph.D.

Junior Civil Judge,Kollapur.

E.P.No. 12 of 2011

Between:- E.Swamulu s/o E.Juttu Balaiah age 32 yrs,occ.Agril, r/o Varidyal,Kollapur proper and Mandal. …Decree Holder

Versus

E.Kurmaiah s/o E.Juttu Balaiah age 40 yrs,occ.Agril, r/o Varidyal,Kollapur proper and Mandal.

…Judgment Debtor

This Case is coming before me in the presence of Sri.B.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Decree holder and Sri V.Upender, Advocate for the Judgment Debtor and having stood over for consideration and delivered the following:--

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed for recovery of money of Rs.74,636/- by way of EP proceedings basing on a decree in O.S.No.61/2007, Dt.31-1- 2011 and the petitioner being D.Hr sought the relief to send the J.Dr for civil imprisonment for non-compliance of decree.

2. In the affidavit of the petitioner, it is mainly averred that the J.Dr has got sufficient means and property to pay the EP amount in lumpsum but avoided to pay the same.

3 The J.Dr appeared and a counter filed on his behalf wherein that the

J.Dr has filed appeal against the Judgment and decree which was passed by the Hon’ble Court, alongwith I.A. for stay of the execution of E.P. before this Hon’ble Court. The stay petition is coming for hearing. As the Judgment and decree is challenged by the J.Dr before appellant Court , The above said E.P. is not maintainable A.S.No.

11/2011 is pending. That the J.Dr has no means and property to pay the E.P. amount. That the D.Hr have only to harass the J.Dr and file this E.P. for seeking arrest warrant.

4 In support of the contention of the D.Hr , he as Pw1 was examined as witness and Ex.A1and A2 document were marked. On the other hand the J.Dr called absent No representation. Hence respondent evidence treated as closed. As he did not turn-up in spite of sufficient opportunity was given.

5 After closure of the evidence of both the parties, heard the counsel for parties who confined to their written contentions.

6 The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the J.Dr is having sufficient means but failed to pay the E.P. amount and hence he pray to arrest the J.Dr and send him to civil imprisonment.

7 Per contra, the agreements for the J.Dr are treated heard.

8 Now the point for determination is whether the J.Dr is neglecting to pay the E.P. amount though having sufficient means and D.Hrs is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

9 (i)As seen from the evidence of Pw1 he stated that the J.Dr has got

Ac. 10-00 of landed property and getting an income of Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum on the agriculture. Thus the J.Dr is having sufficient means and property to pay the decreetal amount and he did not pay the decreetal amount intentionally and is liable to be arrested and detention in civil prison till he pays the decreetal amount.

During the course of cross examination nothing was elicited to disbelieve his evidence.

(ii) Perusal of Ex.A1 and A2 pahanies for the year 2011-12 discloses that the respondent owned Ac. 5-20gts in Sy.No. 184/AA2 and Sy.No.

119/A1.

(iii)Therefore this court has no hesitation to hold that the J.Dr owned sufficient means and neglected to pay the same . Hence the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered.

10 In the result, the petition is allowed. Issue order U/o 21 rule 38 CPC

Arrest warrant on process directing the Field Asst to arrest the J.Dr and bring him to the Court and in case the J.Dr fails to pay the E.P.

amount, he will be committed to Civil Prison for a period of one month on process warrant returnable on 9-4-2013

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of February,2013.

. Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

Appendix of evidence

For Decree Holders For Judgment Debtor Pw1:E.Swamulu --Nil- Exhibits marked

Ex.A1: is the pahanie for the year 2011-12--Nil— Ex.A2: is the pahanie for the year 2011-12

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLLAPUR

Tuesday this the 16 th day of April, 2013

Present: Dr. T.Srinivasa Rao,

M.A., LL.M.,PGDIRPM.,Ph.D.

Junior Civil Judge,Kollapur.

E.P.No. 2 of 2013

Between:- K.M.Khaja Moinuddin s/o Late Mahabub Ali age 63 yrs,occ. Retd Teacher r/o Kollapur town and Mandal. …Decree Holder

Versus

1.S.Raman Goud s/o Devaiah Goud age 44 yrs,occ. Business 2.Laxmidevamma w/o Raman Goud age 39 yrs,occ. Housewife Both are r/o Kalwakole village of Peddakothapally Mandal. …Judgment Debtors

This Case is coming before me in the presence of Sri.S.Baleeshwaraiah, Advocate for the Decree holder and Judgment Debtor No.1 called absent set exparte and having stood over for consideration and delivered the following:--

O R D E R

1. This is an execution petition filed for realization of an amount of

Rs 91,044/- which is inclusive of decreetal amount, costs and EP costs from the J.Dr on the ground that the suit in O.S 19/2012 for recovery of money was decreed on 3-5-2012 in favour of the D.Hr.

2 It is mainly averred in the petition that the J.Dr No.1 is not paying the said amount to the D.Hr, even though he is having sufficient income.

The J.Dr is doing business and earning money. The J.Dr avoiding to pay the amount as such it is just and proper to pass an order to arrest the J.Dr and keep him in Civil prison for a suitable period and sought to detain the J.Dr in civil imprisonment as failed to comply the money decree.

3 In support of the contention of the D.Hr Pw1 was examined as witness and on the other hand the J.Dr No.1 called absent.

2 4 After closure of the evidence of the D.Hr , heard the counsel for D.Hr.

5 Now the point for consideration is that whether the J.Dr has sufficient means to comply the money decree passed in O.S.19/2012 on 3-5- 2012.

6. The un challenged testimony of Pw1 shows that the J.Dr .No. 1 is having sufficient means.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed issue order U/o 21 rule 38 C.P.C.

arrest warrant directing the Field Asst to arrest the J.Dr and bring him to the Court and in case the J.D fails to pay the E.P. amount, he will be committed to Civil Prison for a period of one month warrant returnable on -6-2013.

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16thday of April, 2013.

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

Appendix of evidence

For Decree Holders For Judgment Debtor

Pw1:K.M.Khaja Moinduddin. Exparte.

Exhibits marked -Nil-

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLLAPUR

Tuesday this the 16 th day of April, 2013

Present: Dr. T.Srinivasa Rao,

M.A., LL.M.,PGDIRPM.,Ph.D.

Junior Civil Judge,Kollapur.

E.P.No. 3 of 2013

Between:- K.M.Khaja Moinuddin s/o Late Mahabub Ali age 63 yrs,occ. Retd Teacher r/o Kollapur town and Mandal. …Decree Holder

Versus

S.Raman Goud s/o Devaiah Goud age 44 yrs,occ. Business r/o Kalwakole village of Peddakothapally Mandal. …Judgment Debtors

This Case is coming before me in the presence of Sri.S.Baleeshwaraiah, Advocate for the Decree holder and Judgment Debtor called absent set exparte and having stood over for consideration and delivered the following:--

O R D E R

1. This is an execution petition filed for realization of an amount of

Rs 79,880/- which is inclusive of decreetal amount, costs and EP costs from the J.Dr on the ground that the suit in O.S 6/2012 for recovery of money was decreed on 9-3-2012 in favour of the D.Hr.

2 It is mainly averred in the petition that the J.Dr is not paying the said amount to the D.Hr, even though he is having sufficient income. The

J.Dr is doing business and earning money. The J.Dr avoiding to pay the amount as such it is just and proper to pass an order to arrest the

J.Dr and keep him in Civil prison for a suitable period and sought to detain the J.Dr in civil imprisonment as failed to comply the money decree.

3 In support of the contention of the D.Hr Pw1 was examined as witness and on the other hand the J.Dr called absent.

2 4 After closure of the evidence of the D.Hr , heard the counsel for D.Hr.

5 Now the point for consideration is that whether the J.Dr has sufficient means to comply the money decree passed in O.S.6/2012 on 9-3- 2012.

6. The un challenged testimony of Pw1 shows that the J.Dr is having sufficient means.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed issue order U/o 21 rule 38 C.P.C.

arrest warrant directing the Field Asst to arrest the J.Dr and bring him to the Court and in case the J.D fails to pay the E.P. amount, he will be committed to Civil Prison for a period of one month warrant returnable on -6-2013.

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16thday of April, 2013.

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

Appendix of evidence

For Decree Holders For Judgment Debtor

Pw1:K.M.Khaja Moinduddin. Exparte.

Exhibits marked -Nil-

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT KOLLAPUR

Tuesday, the 29th day of October,2013

PRESENT:- D.V.R.Tejo Karthik, B.Com(Hons)., LL.M.,

PGDADR, PGDCJ&FS, PGDCL&IPR.

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur

Original Suit No. 111 OF 2009

Between:

Karanam Balram Rao s/o Subba Rao age 68 years, occ. Purohith r/o Gopaldinne villages of Pangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..Plaintif

And

1. Kanimetta Keshamma w/o Bichanna age 65 years,occ.Coollie

2. Kanimetta Baleeshwaramma w/o not known age 45 years,occ.Coolie Both are r/o Gopaldinne villages of Pangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

…Defendants.

Sub:- For perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their heirs, agents and workmen from making construction in the suit site admeasuring 20 x 20 ft., situated in the limits of Gopaldinne village of Pangal Mandal as shown in the sketch map and located on the western side of the back yard of the platifs house bearing G.P.NO. 1-55.. @@@ This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Baleeshwaraiah, learned Counsel for the plaintif and Sri G. Kamaraju, learned counsel for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintif called absent No representation. Hence suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of

October, 2013.

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

2