PAKANATI VAKULABHARANAM NAIDU Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PAKANATI VAKULABHARANAM NAIDU
UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAYS, CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE appeal is directed against the Order of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, by which he has refused costs in the execution petition against the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway and SouthEastern Railway, represented by its General Manager, on the ground that the provisions of section 82 (2), Civil Procedure Code, have not been complied with. It is apparent from a perusal of the order that in the money decree, which has been passed against the respondents, a time limit of two months was given for the satisfaction of the decree as contemplated under section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the expiry of the period, an execution petition was filed and some amount was deposited by the defendants. In regard to costs, however, of a sum of Rs.177-45 nP., the Court held that as no notice to the State Government has been given as provided under section 82 (2), the appellant was not entitled to costs of the execution petition. From a perusal of the section, it is evident that a duty is cast on the Court to report the case for orders of the State Government, in case the decree is not satisfied within the stipulated period or within three months from the date of the decree. THE decree-holder is not saddled with this responsibility. It has also been stated in the order of the lower Court that an application was filed by the decree-holder in the execution petition to issue notice under section 82 (2), Civil Procedure Code, before ordering further steps in the matter, and a notice was issued to the judgment-debtors and so also to the vakil representing the railways. But according to the lower Court, one mistake committed by the decree-holder (appellant) is that, he did not request the Court to issue a notice to the State Government. As stated above, this was the duty of the Court and if the Court had failed to report the case for orders to the State Government, the decree-holder could not be deprived of the costs to which he was entitled.
(2.) I, therefore, allow the appeal, holding that the appellant is entitled to the costs of the execution petition. As the other side is unrepresented, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.