MAREPALLY NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. KANCHARLA KUMARA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the decree holder impugning the order of the execution Court in E.P.No.14 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Janagaon in O.S.No.8 of 1998. The decree holder sought for the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in the civil prison for not honouring the money decree. Through the impugned order dated 31.10.2006, the execution Court held that the decree holder failed to show that the judgment debtor has means and that the judgment debtor, therefore, cannot be committed to the civil prison.

(2.) THE decree holder laid a suit against the judgment debtor for a sum of Rs. 2,92,173/- together with interest thereof. On 14.10.2003, the suit was decreed. THE judgment debtor contends that he laid an appeal in A.S.No.640 of 2004 before the High Court and that the same is pending. THE decree holder, on the other hand, contends that he never received notices in the appeal and that the appeal, therefore, is deemed to be not pending. Even the judgment debtor admitted that there is no stay in A.S.No.640 of 2004. Sri Balchand, learned counsel for the judgment debtor, however, contends that it is not as though the appellate Court refused to stay the operation of the judgment -and decree passed by the trial Court. It is his case that as the judgment debtor did not have means to discharge the money decree, the judgment debtor did not ask for the stay of the execution of the decree and that the decree holder in any event could not proceed against the judgment debtor, in view of the judgment debtor not having means.

(3.) THE counsel for both sides placed reliance upon the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which in turn rely upon and interpret Jolly George Varghese. In Saratchandra, Padhyannadange v. Gudiya Eswara Rao (2) 2000 (3) ALT 411, the single Judge of High Court referred to the view of the Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese's that the simple default to discharge the decree is not enough.