N RANGANAYAKULU Vs. J NARASIMHARAO AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In O. S. No. 30 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif, Khammam, the respondent in this revision petition obtained a decree against three defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,558-10p together with further amounts of interest and costs as specified in the decree. The three defendants are a firm doing business in the name of Nagubandi Ranganayakulu, now represented by a Receiver appointed by the Subordinate Judge, Warangal in O. S. No. 82 of 1966 and Ranganayakulu and Madhava Rao who are the partners of the 1st defendant firm. The decree in O. S. No. 30 of 1967 was transferred to the Mahabubad court for execution. The respondent decree holder moved the court in E. P. No. 25 of 1968 for the arrest and detention in civil prison of the 2nd defendant, Ranganayakulu. The petition was granted by the executing court. The order is challenged in this revision petition by the judgment-debtor who is directed to be arrested and detained in prison.

(2.) There are various points taken by Mr. Y. Suranarayana in support of this revision petition. He contends that ton a true construction of the terms of the decree, no personal liability is imposed on the 2nd judgment-debtor (hereinafter referred to as the debtor) and that a partner cannot be subjected to the coercive process of arrest for the recovery of a partnership debit in respect of which such personal liability has not been expressly undertaken by the partner concerned. It is further urged by him that the decree nakes the debtor liable only in the contingency of non-satisfaction after execution is taken or levied against the firms assets. He has also submitted that the executing court has erred in passing the final order of arrest and detention without giving the debtor an opportunity of showing cause against the arrest. It is stated that debtor, on his appearance in Court, raised a preliminary question about the validity of the process of arrest and if his objection was overruled, it was still incumbent on the court to give him an opportunity of resisting the petition on merits. This omission, he urges, renders the decision null and void.

(3.) While countering all the arguments of the petitioner. Mr. N. Ramamohan Rao, appearing for the decree-holder challenged the competence of the revision petition itself. He states that the order directing the arrest and detention in prison is open to appeal and consequently petitioners resort to the revisional jurisdictional of this Court is misconceived.