::IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ANANTAPURAMU

PRESENT: Smt. G.Deena

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. Tuesday, this the 05th day of March, 2024

E.P.No.72 of 2023 in O.S.359 of 2018

Between :

M.Adinarayana @ M.Adi Narayan Reddy ….Petitioner/D.Hr

And

Bandrau Krishna Murthy ...Respondent/J.Dr

This petition coming on 27.2.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Ramanjineya Chowdary, advocate for the Petitioner/D.Hr and Sri K.J.Ramesh, advocate for the Respondents/JDRs and upon hearing on both sides, and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1. The D.Hr filed present Petition under Order XXI, Rule 37 and 38 of C.P.C against the Judgment Debtor to order notice to pay the decretal amount and if he fails to pay the decretal amount order for his arrest and send him into civil Prison for realization of the decretal amount.

2. In brief the averments in the petition are that the petitioner filed this E.P. against the Jdr basing on the decree which was passed on 16.7.2019, the suit was filed for recovery of the amount, the Jdr ha snot preferred any appeal and so the decree and judgment have become final, In spite of the decree the JDR has not paid any amount due under the decree, he is doing business and has got ready means to pay the amount. Apart from

that he got movable and immovable properties and drawing pension from the government, the Jdr is evading repayment of the debt intentionally and hence the E.P.

3. On the other hand, the respondent/Judgment Debtor filed counter denied the petition allegations. It is pleaded that after lapse of three years the petitioner filed this present E.P. he is aged about 70 years, except meager pension he has no other source of income, the amount claimed in the E.P is not correct, and interest calculated is very high, there are no valid grounds and prayed the court to dismiss the E.P.

4. During course of enquiry, none were examined and no document got marked.

5. Heard the Dhr, there is no representation from the Jdr, hence enqury closed and posted for orders. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether there are any grounds to allow the petition ?

POINT :

7. DHR filed the present Execution Petition under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 for arrest and detention of Jdr for realization of the E.P amount.

8. As per the record, the suit in O.S.359/2018 was decreed directing the Jdr/defendant to pay the suit amount with interest. In petition affidavit the contention of Dhr is, having sufficient means to pay the EP amount, Jdr has not complied the terms of the decree, hence requested to issue arrest warrant against the Jdr, to send Jdr to civil prison for realization of E.P amount.

9. As per the record as present petition is filed after lapse of two years of passing decree, as per the procedure, R.22 is issued against Jdr calling for his objection against the present execution petition. Jdr filed counter denying all allegations of the dhr. He pleaded, he is not at all indebted any amount to the Dhr much less present EP amount. Filing of the present petition after three years of passing decree shows that Dhr is not entitled to receive any amount, further the said decree is a fraudulent decree.

10. As per the record the said decree is a valid decree binding on the Jdr. No evidence has been filed by Jdr to conclude that he paid EP amount/decretal amount in compliance of the decree. There is not prohibition to file execution petition after lapse of three years of decree. Hence above contentions of Jdr are not sustainable.

11. Another contention of the jdr is, he is aged about 70 years, except his meager amount of pension, he has no other source. It is for the Dhr to prove means of the Jdr. Age of the jdr is not a ground to dismiss the present petition unless he is specifically exempted under any provisions from the arrest.

12. A careful perusal of counter of Jdr, it is clear that he has not raised any tenable objection in the present petition, hence Dhr can be permitted to proceed further in the present petition to prove the means of the Jdr for further steps. Accordingly the point is answered.

13. In the result this petition is allowed, Dhr is permitted to proceed further to prove means of the Jdr. Issue R.37 notice to Jdr on process. Call on 4.4.2024.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 5th day of March, 2024.

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.