COMMON ORDER:

These two Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) are connected to one another and are argued at once and therefore, by this common order they are to be considered and decided.

2. O.S.No.123 of 2001 was a suit for partition of properties and for assessment of mesne profits and such other reliefs. After due trial, the suit was decreed. A direction was given that on a separate application mesne profits could be ascertained. Thereafter, for ascertainment of mesne profits, I.A.No.591 of 2007 in O.S.No.123 of 2001 was filed under Order XX Rule 12(1)(b)(a) read with Order XXVI Rule 13 and Section 151 C.P.C. After due enquiry by an order dated 09.07.2015 learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada granted Rs.2,70,480/- to each of the following persons, namely, Smt. T.Naga Lakshmi, Smt. A.Jaya Lakshmi and Smt. K.Kalyani. The payments were to be made by the following persons, namely, Smt. Kalyanam Lakshmikanthamma, Kalyanam Sreenivasa Ravi and Kalyanam Subba Rao. It is undisputed that Smt. Kalyanam Lakshmi Kanthamma died. Since the mesne profits that were ordered to be paid were not paid, execution was levied by Smt. A.Jaya Lakshmi and filed E.P.No.351 of 2015 in O.S.No.123 of 2001. Smt. A.Kalyani filed E.P.No.352 of 2015. Each of them filed the said execution petitions as against Sri Kalyanam Sreenivasa Ravi and Sri Kalyanam Subba Rao. In both the execution petitions, they sought for arrest and detention of those respondents in civil prison since they failed to pay the mesne profits that were awarded to the execution petitioners respectively. In both the petitions, respondents filed their counters. In both the execution petitions, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijawawada passed orders on 30.08.2018. By those orders, the executing Court agreed with the contentions of execution petitioners and ordered arrest of respondents therein. It is in challenge to those orders, the present revision petitions are filed. C.R.P.No.5423 of 2018 assails the order in E.P.No.352 of 2015 in O.S.No.123 of 2001. C.R.P.No.5450 of 2018 assails the order in E.P.No.351 of 2015 in O.S.No.123 of 2001.

3. Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted arguments.

4. Learned counsel for revision petitioners cited Jolly George Varghese v. The Bank of Cochin1 and K.Vijayakumar v. N.Gururaja Rao2.

5. In the light of the submissions made on both sides and the contents of the impugned order, the point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the executing Court exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity requiring this revisional Court to interfere with?”

POINT:

6. The executing Court by the impugned orders ordered for arrest of the revision petitioners since they failed to pay money towards mesne profits that were awarded. The following

1 AIR 1980 SC 470

2 2004 (3) ALD 702 (AP)

principles of law are relevant for consideration as they govern the subject matter:

7. It is relevant to notice Section 51 C.P.C., which reads as mentioned below:

“51. Powers of Court to enforce execution:- Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree-

(a) by delivery of any property specifically decreed;

(b) by attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of any property;

(c) by arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in section 58, where arrest and detention is permissible under that section;

(d) by appointing a receiver; or (e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require:

Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons re