Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi, J.
Badireddi Nageswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Telu Satyanarayana Murthy – Respondent
C.R.P. No. 524 of 2013
Decided On : 31-10-2022
Code of Civil Procedure - Execution Petition - Judgment Debtor's Means to Discharge Decree Amount - Installment Decree - Dismissal of Civil Revision Petition
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/decree holder filed an execution petition to arrest the judgment debtor and detain him in civil prison for failing to discharge the decree amount, despite having means to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The executing Court found that the judgment debtor, who claimed to be a small farmer with no means to discharge the decree amount, actually had a dairy farm business and failed to produce accounts showing the turnover of his business. The executing Court also noted that the judgment debtor did not request an installment decree as per the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: The main issue was whether the judgment debtor had the means to discharge the decree amount and whether an installment decree should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The executing Court held that the judgment debtor's claim of having no means to discharge the decree amount was not credible, considering the evidence of his dairy farm business and the value of his property. The Court also emphasized that the judgment debtor did not follow the proper procedure for requesting an installment decree.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for Revision Petitioner. No representation for respondent. This Revision Petition is filed against the order dtd. 13/12/2012 of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, delivered in E.P.42/2011 in O.S.736/2001. The Revision Petitioner is judgment debtor in the execution petition. The respondent/decree holder filed E.P. U/o.XXI Rule 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure to arrest the judgment debtor and to detain him in civil prison, as he failed to discharge the decree amount, inspite of having means to discharge the decree amount, and avoiding to discharge the same with a malafide intention.
2. The decree holder was examined as P.W-1 and the judgment debtor was examined as D.W-1. The contention of the judgment debtor is that he is a small farmer, and he has no means to discharge the decree amount.
3. The record shows that as per evidence of the Revision Petitioner/judgment debtor, in the cross-examination, he admitted that he has been doing dairy farm business, and he failed to produce accounts showing turnover of his business, and the property described under Ex.B-1 is worth of Rs.2,00,000.00, even as per the admission of the judgment debtor in the cross-examination. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the executing Court held that the contention of the Revision Petition that he has no means to discharge the decree amount, cannot be believed.
4. It appears that the Revision Petitioner has sought for installment decree, which was not accepted by the executing Court, as no such decree was passed earlier. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner/judgment debtor did not ask the original Court to pass installment decree as laid down U/o.XX Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the executing Court. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed.
5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
The judgment debtor's means to discharge the decree amount and the proper procedure for requesting an installment decree under the Code of Civil Procedure were central to the Court's decision.
The court clarified that mere default in paying a decree is insufficient for incarceration; evidence of bad faith and refusal to pay despite having means is required.
A judgment debtor can be arrested and detained in civil prison for non-payment of a decretal amount only if it is shown that he has the means to pay and intentionally neglected to pay.
The judgment emphasized the requirement of evidence to establish the judgment-debtor's means to discharge the decree amount and highlighted the need to prove an attitude of refusal to pay, beyond mer....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
