SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(AP) 828

D.S.R.VERMA
Y. Saratchandra – Appellant
Versus
Lakshminarasimha Finances – Respondent


D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the order, dated 16-06-2004, passed in E. P. No. 496 of 2002 in O. S. No. 1228 of 2000, by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, ordering arrest, of the petitioner under order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of civil Procedure.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is Judgment Debtor no. 2, first respondent is Decree Holder and second respondent is Judgment Debtor no. 1 respectively before the Executing court.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, in this order, parties will be referred to as arrayed before the Executing Court.

( 5 ) THE facts, which are not in dispute, are that E. P. has been filed by the Decree holder against Judgment Debtor-2. Judgment Debtor-2 is the guarantor. Judgment Debtor-1 is the principal borrower. The Executing Court, having considered the material available on record, allowed the e. P. filed under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 c. P. C. ordering arrest of JDR-2. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel on either side, I have perused the impugned order as well the other material papers available on record.

( 7 ) A perusal of t










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top