IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The burden lies on the decree-holder to prove that the judgment-debtor has the means to pay the decretal amount and is willfully evading payment, following the procedures laid out in the CPC.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Anirudh, learned counsel representing Mr. Boosa Shivachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1832 of 2024, Mr. Gummala Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 2141 of 2024 and Mr. Gudiseva Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 to 13 are not necessary parties as per the cause title in C.R.P. No. 2141 of 2024.

2. C.R.P. No. 1832 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner-judgment/debtor No. 4 in E.P. No. 102 of 2020 challenging the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in E.P. No. 102 of 2020. Challenging the very same order, judgment/debtor Nos. 2, 3, 6, 14 and 16 filed C.R.P. No. 2141 of 2024.

3. The petitioners in both the revisions are arrayed as judgment-debtor Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 14 and 16, respectively, while respondent No. 1 is the decree-holder in E.P. No. 102 of 2020. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in E.P. No. 102 of 2020.

4. Originally, the decree-holder filed a suit vide O.S. No. 144 of 2015 against the judgment-debtors including the petitioners herein, for recovery of Rs.65,16,588/- along with future interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.54,76,125/- and costs arising out of sale of cotton crop to judgment-debtor No. 1 cotton industry. Vide judgment and decree, dated 23.08.2019, learned District Judge, Karimangar, decreed the suit for Rs.65,16,588/- with future interest @ 6% per annum on the aforesaid principal amount from the date of suit till the date of realization, however, dismissed the counter claim made by judgment-debtor No. 1.

5. As the judgment-debtors failed to pay the decretal amount, the decree-holder filed an execution petition vide E.P. No. 102 of 2020 against judgment-debtor Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14 and 16 under Order-XXI, Rules-11A, 37, 38, 39 and 40 of CPC seeking arrest and detention of judgment-debtor Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14 and 16. The decree-holder contended that the aforesaid judgment debtors are rich enough and having sufficient properties/means to pay the decretal amount, but are intentionally evading payment of decretal amount and, therefore, sought to order for arrest and detention in civil prison as per law and after due enquiry in case they fail to pay the decretal amount as per Section-55, Order-XXI, Rule 11-A read with Rules 37 to 40 of CPC.

6. The judgment-debtor Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 14 and 16 filed counter opposing the said execution petition contending that the decree-holder did not file any evidence to prove their income. Judgment-debtor No. 4 specifically pleaded that judgment-debtor No. 1 industry, M/s. Kamakshi Cotton Industries, was a partnership firm. During pendency of O.S. No. 144 of 2015, the said firm was dissolved and the properties owned by the firm including the industry, sheds, machinery and other structures with land covered by it were sold to third parties. As against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2019 in O.S. No. 144 of 2015, the judgment-debtors preferred an appeal vide A.S. No. 4 of 2021 before this Court and the same is pending. Judgment-debtor No. 11 died and judgment-debtor No. 4 is not having any properties and he is suffering from colon cancer. Therefore, they cannot be sent for civil prison.

7. During course of inquiry, the decree-holder examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5, whereas, judgment/debtor Nos. 4, 2, 3, 6, 16 and 14 were examined themselves as RWs.1 to 6, respectively.

8. After hearing both sides and on perusal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide order, dated 30.04.2024, learned Principal District Judge rejected the plea of the said judgment-debtors and accordingly issued warrant against judgment-debtor Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 14 and 16 on deposit of subsistence allowance tentatively for five (05) days.

9. Challenging the said order, dated 30.03.2024, judgment/debtor No. 4 and judgment-debtor Nos. 2, 3, 6, 14 and 16 filed