KARNATI SURYANARAYANA Vs. SRI RAMA FINANCE CORPORATION (REGD.) MIRYALAGUDA REP. BY ITS PARTNER KALAM PRABHAKAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment debtor in EP.No.56 of 1997 in O.S.No.34 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, is the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.34 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda and he had suffered a decree for Rs.1,36,316 -50 ps. The respondent herein who is the decree holder filed EP.No.56 of 1997 for arrest and detention of the judgment debtor, which was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda by order dated 5 -3 -1999. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor has preferred the present revision petition.

(2.) SHRI Ashok Anand, representing Sri R.K. Chitta, appearing for the revision petitioner -judgment debtor had submitted that the judgment debtor is an old man and there is no clear evidence to the effect that the judgment debtor is having means to pay the decretal amount. The learned Counsel contended that in the impugned order, the period of detention also was not specified. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the relevant portion of the order of the court below and had pointed out that the evidence of PW.1 and also Exs.A1 and A2 may not be sufficient evidence to prove the means of the judgment debtor. Even otherwise, before ordering arrest, a notice shall be preceded with and since no such notice was issued, the order itself is bad in law. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and also placed reliance on several decisions like JOLLY GEORGE VERGHESE vs. THE BANK OF COCHIN , ALURU VENKATA RAO vs. K.V.S.K.JAGAN MOHAN RAO ; J.VENUGOPAL vs. SYNDICATE BANK, KAVALI ; SIKILE MOSES vs. KOTURI SEETA RAM DAS ; R.V.J.SASTRY vs. BANK OF INDIA ; SEETHARAMA RAO vs. RAJA KUMAR ; V.GANESH NADAR vs. K.CHELLATHAI AMMAL ; and also P.SARATCHANDRA VS. G.ESWARA RAO .

(3.) IT is no doubt true that in T.DORAISWAMY REDDY vs. K.KONDA NAIDU this Court had expressed an opinion that while making an order of arrest, the period of detention shall also be specified. In J.J. Shankar's case (10 supra), this Court was pleased to observe that: