Decided on June 03,2019

Rajeti Prabhakara Rao Appellant
Mosa Satyavathi And Others Respondents


U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - (1.)The challenge in the C.R.P. at the instance of the decree holder is to the order dated 22.10.2018 in E.P.No.54 of 2017 in O.S.No.274 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram dismissing the petition filed by him under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC seeking the Court to issue arrest warrant against the judgment debtors 3 & 4 and commit them to civil prison for realization of the amount.
(2.)The factual matrix of the case is thus:
The decree holder filed O.S.No.274 of 2016 against the judgment debtors/defendants 1 to 4 for recovery of Rs. 55,520/- on the strength of a promissory note and the defendants remained ex parte and said suit was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 20.07.2016. Thereupon the D.Hr filed E.P.No.54 of 2017 with prayer to issue notice under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC to the judgment debtors 3 & 4 to comply the decree directions and on their failure to commit them to civil prison. In the affidavit filed in support of E.P, he stated that the judgment debtors 2 to 4 are eking livelihood by doing works and getting salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month each and in spite of having sufficient means and capacity to discharge the decretal debt in one lumpsum, they intentionally avoided to do so. The docket order in aforesaid E.P., a certified copy of which is filed herewith, shows that upon receiving notice JDrs 3 & 4 appeared in person and also through their counsel. The matter underwent several adjournments for filing their counter the and ultimately on 22-06-2018 counsel for J.Drs reported no counter. Hence, the execution Court posted the matter to 17.07.2018 for appearance of J.Drs 3 & 4, but they remained absent and hence, the Court set them ex parte and posted the matter for evidence of D.Hr to prove the means of J.Drs to 10.08.2018. It appears the D.Hr requested the Court to issue arrest warrant against the J.Drs 3 & 4 in terms of Rule 37(2) CPC for they failed to appear in obedience to the order of the Court. However, the Court refused to issue arrest warrant on the ground that no material was produced by the D.Hr to show that the J.Drs were working and getting any income and except mere pleading of the D.Hr there was no other material on record showing that the J.Drs were having income and thus, the D.Hr failed to establish the means of the J.Drs to pay the decree debt. On those observations, the E.P. was dismissed on 22.10.2018.

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

(3.)Notice in C.R.P. was directed against the judgment debtors 3 & 4, but there was no representation. Hence, heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner/ D.Hr.

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