VEMULA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. THUMEPALLI VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment-debtor is the petitioner in this Revision. The Revision is filed against an order in E.P. 112 of 1998 in O.S.No. 142 of 1996 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Macherla. The respondent decreeholder filed the said E.P. seeking arrest of the revision petitioner-judgment-debtor. After recording the evidence, the Court below came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner is liable for arrest for realisation of the decretal amount and by its order dated 16-10-2000 directed issuance of arrest warrant against the judgment-debtor. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed.

(2.) It was contended by the learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor before the learned Single Judge that the relief of discharging the decretal debt by way of instalments at least could have been granted. Strong reliance in this regard was placed on the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in E. Murugaiah v. C. Ekambara Reddy1 which is to the effect that even in money decrees in execution, Court shall order payment of decretal amount in instalments in suitable cases instead of ordering arrest. However, the learned referring Judge was of the opinion that in the light of the specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure granting such a relief to pay the decretal amount by way of instalments at the stage of execution may amount to virtually reviewing the judgment in the suit and that it is not permissible. The learned referring Judge was of the Opinion that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment reported in Murugaiah's case1 requires reconsideration. That is how the learned Judge has referred the matter to this Division Bench framing the following question: (emphasis added)

(3.) In this context Order 20 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be usefully referred to. It reads as follows: "Decree may direct payment by instalments:-