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

2001 Supreme(AP) 1055

RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT
A. Sambasiva Rao – Appellant
Versus
Rudru Bhaskara Rao – Respondent


O R D E R

The petitioner herein was the Judgment-Debtor. The respondent herein was two decree holder. The respondent herein obtained a decree for certain amount in O.S.No.233 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. The suit was decreed and the decree-holder-Respondent herein filed E.P.No.50 of 2000. The deecree -holder prayed for arrest of judgment-debtor, which was ordered. Hence the

revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission

stage.

3. Admittedly the petitioner herein is an employee and he has to pay the decretal amount. The power of arrest has to be exercised by the learned Judge as a last resort and not at the first instance. When the petitioner is a salaried person, his salary could be attached in execution of the decree. Therefore, the order of arrest is set aside. The learned Judge is directed to pass a fresh order keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 60 read with Order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C.

4. With this direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

--X--

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