RAMANAIAH IN RC Vs. RAMANAIAH IN RC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A plea was set up in the written statement claiming the benefit of AP Act No, 8 of 1977 and issue No 2 in the suit related to the same. Defendant remained absent. He was set exparte and the suit was decreed, exparte. Therefore, the issue must be deemed to have been decided against the defendant. If so, he was precluded from raising the said plea at the time of execution as the plea is barred by resjudicata.

(2.) Sri O.V.L. Narasimha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner places very strong reliance upon the decision in D Nanja Reddy v D Anjaneyulu where it was held that the principles of constructive resjudicata would not override the statutory bar enacted in Section 4 (2) of the A.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 af ainst the entertainment of any suit or proceeding against a debtor under the Act. and therefore, Explanation IV to Section 11 C.P.C. would not apply. It is unnecessary for me to express any opinion on the correctness of the aforesaid ruling, as the facts of that case are distinguishable. In that case, the defandent-judgment debtor does not appear to have taken any plea in the suit chaiming the benefit of Act 8 of 1977, whereas in the present case, the defendant took a specific plea in the written statement claiming the benefit of Act. 8/77 and an issue was also framed in that regard, and as the defendant remained exparte, he was set exparte, and on the basis of the evidence led by the plaintiff, the suit was decreed exparte. Therefore, issue No. 2 which relates to the applicability of Act 8/77 must be deemed to have been decided against the defendant. The lower court rightly held that the issue must be deemed to have been decided in the suit and therefore, the plea based on A P. Act 8 of 1977 is barred by resjudicata in execution proceedings.

(3.) There are, therefore, no grounds for admitting the revision, which is therefore, dismissed. KNR Appeal dismissed.