J LAKSHMIKANTHAM Vs. UPPALA RAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but rather important point which is raised in this Revision is whether decretal amount has to be deposited or security has be furnished in the appellate Court as a condition precedent for hearing and disposal of the appeal within the meaning of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Civil P.C.? The facts are very few. The revisionist herein obtained a decree which is admittedly a money decree. As against that, he preferred an appeal canvassing the correctness with regard to the principal amount only, whereas the respondent-judgment-debtor preferred an appeal contesting the interest part of it. In the said appeal an interlocutory application was filed by the revisionist herein seeking a direction from the court that the judgment-debtor must either deposit the amount covered by the decree or furnish security as a condition precedent for the numbering or entertaining the appeal. The appellate Court negatived the request of the revisionist herein by holding that the appeal was certainly maintainable and it was nevertheless open to the decree holder to proceed, if he so felt expedient, with the executive of the decree by filling execution petition within the meaning of sub-rule (5) of R.5 of O.41 of the Civil P.C. Hence this revision.

(2.) Sri Y. G. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, solely confined his contention to the aspect that through the appeal is maintainable, the same cannot be heard and disposed of until and unless the judgment-debtor deposits the amount covered by the decree or furnishes security for the same I see no force in this contention. Before adjudicating the relevant provisions may be read:

(3.) The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.