VANKAYALA NAGESWARA RAO Vs. PECHETTI CHANDRA RAO
LAWS(APH)-1972-7-23
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 21,1972

VANKAYALA NAGESWARA RAO, BEING MINOR BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND VANKAYALA KRISHNAVENI Appellant
VERSUS
PECHETTI CHANDRA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This revision is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 134 of 1969 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Amalapuram, against the order made in I.A. No. 472 of 1971, dated 19th July, 1971, granting the respondent-defendant herein, permission to pay the decretal amount in instalments of Rs.200 per month. The decree in the suit O.S. No. 134 of 1969 was passed on nth February, 1971. By means of an I.A. No. 472 of 1971, dated 2nd March, 1971, the defendant-respondent prayed for permission to pay the decretal amount by instalments at the rate of Rs. 50 per month till the entire debt is discharged. The petitioner-decree-holder opposed the said application stating that the suit itself was based upon a pronote, dated 9th Augrst, 1965, that the suit was filed on 18th July, 1969 ; that the decree was passed on 11th February, 1971 that the petitioner (defendant) was in a position to pay the decretal amount at one time; that he has got stock in trade worth Rs. 5,000; that he has recently purchased a house worth Rs. 23,000 and two sites for Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 6,500 respectively and that the petition for instalments should be dismissed with costs.
(2.) The decree amount is about Rs. 3,500. The lower Court considered the application on merits and ultimately held that it was a fit case where an order can be passed under Order 20, rule 11 (2), Civil Procedure Code. Regarding the claim of the Judgment-debtor that the instalment should be fixed at Rs. 50 per month, the lower Court considered the claim and found that if the payment of Rs. 50 per month is granted it would take an unduly long time for the discharge of the decretal amount. The lower Court, therefore, fixed the instalment at Rs. 200 per month. In order to obviate the fear of the decree-holder that the Judgment-debtor may alienate his immoveable properties, the lower Court directed him to furnish security for Rs. 5,000 of his own and also third party security for the same amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court.
(3.) This order of the lower Court, granting instalments under Order 20, rule 11 (2) is now impeached in this revision petition by the plaintiff-decree-holder. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant has taken a preliminary objection that no revision lies, as an order passed under Order 20, rule 11(2) is appealable and as such the revision should not be entertained. The learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant relied upon the rulings of Rangoon, Nagpur and Madras High Courts in support of his contention in Tan Kyi Lin v. King Emperor, Ushwe Tone v. Mayhal Ma. Maungpo Maik v. Kasi Chettyar, Abdul Karim v. Maung San Kyaw, Jagruteshwar Deosthan v. Atmaram, Venkataramiah v. Vanajakshamma, Narayanaswami v. State and Chandra Nath v. Sahadabia Kumarin.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.