Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Munirathnam vs D. Bhaskar Naidu on 15 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(3)ALD486
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 233 of 2002, in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decree on 7-1-2003. Since the petitioner did not satisfy the decree, the respondent filed E.P.No. 33 of 2003. The respondent prayed for arrest of the petitioner, pleading that though the latter had sufficient means to comply with the decree, he is deliberately avoiding to do so. The petitioner resisted the E.P. Through its order, dated 5-2-2004, the executing Court recorded a finding that the petitioner had sufficient means, but he is evading to satisfy the decree. Accordingly, it directed arrest of the petitioner and detention in civil prison. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.
2. Sri Meherchand Nori, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client does not have the means to satisfy the decree. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in K. Harikrishna v. Dr. L. Raghunatha Rao he contends that the executing Court did not follow the prescribed procedure.
3. Sri P. Jagdish Chandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner and the respondent were examined by the executing Court, before the order under revision came to be passed. He contends that the petitioner had admitted that he possessed some property, and in addition to that, he is holding several movable and immovable properties.
4. The decree passed against the petitioner, became final. The respondent alleged that, despite possessing adequate means, the petitioner did not satisfy the decree. He prayed for arrest of the petitioner.
5. Rules 37 and 40 of Order 21 and Sections 55 and 56 of C.P.C., prescribe procedure, to be followed in the mater of detention of judgment-debtor, in the civil prison. In K. Harikrishna's case (supra), this Court dealt with the same extensively, and held that any deviation from the procedure, would result in annulment of the order of detention.
6. Once the judgment-debtor is brought before the Court, the decree holder must be examined in his presence, and it is only after the Court is satisfied, on an examination of the evidence, that the judgment-debtor is possessed of adequate means; that the further steps can be taken.
7. In the instant case, after the petitioner appeared before the executing Court, the respondent herein deposed himself, as PW.1. He spoke to the various items of property said to have been possessed by the petitioner herein. In addition to that, he examined PW.2, who corroborated the version of the respondent. The petitioner, in turn, was examined as RW-1, and he pleaded that he holds house property in Naravaripally. He denied the suggestion that he possessed Ac.3-00 of land at Chandragiri, and is doing business in joggery, coconuts, etc. He, however, admitted that he cultivated Ac.3-00 of land, as lessee. RW-2 was examined to support his contention. The executing Court did not believe the version of the petitioner herein, and accordingly ordered his arrest.
8. It must not be forgotten that the nature of enquiry to be undertaken in the execution proceedings, in the context of arrest of a judgment-debtor and detention in civil prison, cannot be equated to the one in the regular civil or criminal proceedings. The effort of executing Court in such case will be only to have a broad idea, as to the capacity of the judgment-debtor, to clear the liability under the decree. It cannot be treated as a parallel enquiry, to defeat the very basic purpose. The finding need not be measured with scales of accuracy. Such a course would amount to putting premium on the evasive tactics of the judgment-debtor, and thereby the whole exercise of adjudication of a suit resulting in a decree, would be reduced to an empty formality.
9. The executing Court had assigned cogent reasons, in support of its conclusions. When the respondent and PW.2 clearly state that the petitioner is the owner of the valuable land, situated nearer to Vidya Nikethan Engineering College, Chandragiri Mandal, valued at Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre, the easiest thing for the petitioner would have been to file an adangal, or other documents, relating to that land. On the other hand, he gave an evasive reply by stating that he cultivated an extent of Ac.3-00 as lessee. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the executing Court.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted the facility of paying the balance of the decretal amount, in instalments. While granting stay on 12-3-2004, this Court directed the petitioner, to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner states that he has complied with the condition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted the facility of paying the balance of the decretal amount, in three by-monthly instalments. The first of such instalment shall be paid on 1-5-2006, the second on 1-7-2006 and the third on 1-9-2006. In default, it shall be open to the respondent, to enforce the order under revision.
11. The CRP is disposed of, with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs.