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

T.S.SIVAGNANAM
M. M. Saleem – Appellant
Versus
R. Praveen Kumar Reddy – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:C. Ravichandran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Subba Reddy, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—This revision is by the Judgment-debtor/respondent in E.P.No.1805/2002 on the file by the IX Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The respondent/decree-holder had filed O.S.No.11006/1996 for recovery of money and the suit was decreed by Judgment and decree dated 12.03.2002 and to realise the decree amount, the respondent filed E.P.No.1805/2002 and sought the assistance of the Court for arrest and detention of the Judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 37 & 38 CPC. The petitioner/Judgment-debtor filed a counter in the execution petition stating that he has not been served with the copy of the means affidavit filed along with the execution petition and that it is mandatory on the part of the decree-holder to serve copy of such affidavit. It was further stated that his business has deteriorated and he is penniless and his mother is taking care of his family from the pension received by her. The Execution Court by its order dated 09.03.2004, ordered arrest of the petitioner. The Executing Court by relying upon the decision of this Court in Chinnaraj and another v. Kanthasamy, 2000 (IV) CTC 481 held that there is no necessity to cause an enquiry or affo











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