BATCHU SURYA PRAKASA RAO Vs. MOHAMMED LATIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by orders dated 03 -01 -2013 passed in E.P No.____of 2012 (unnumbered) in O.S NO. 225 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda.

(2.) THE petitioner is the decree holder and the respondent is the judgment debtor. The petitioner was granted mortgage decree dated 12 -02 -2001 against the defendants in the said suit. Final decree for sale of schedule property was also passed in I.A No. 980 of 2001 on 22 -07 -2002. Since defendant Nos.1 and 2 died, their legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.4 to 12. At the stage of E.P, the matter was settled between the petitioner and the respondent who is the third judgment debtor and Lok Adalat Award was passed in terms of the compromise. When the respondent failed to repay the amount in terms of the Lok Adalat Award, the petitioner filed the execution petition seeking the arrest of the respondent and to send him to civil prison for realization of the amount which was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence the revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that since the respondent has failed to pay the amount in terms of the Lok Adalat Award, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application by ordering the arrest of the respondent. He further contends that the Award passed by the Lok Adalat is based on the terms and conditions agreed to by both the parties and is a decree as if passed by a civil Court which can be executed. In support of the same, he relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in P.T Thomas v. Thomas Job, 2005 6 SCC 478 and K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji, 2012 2 SCC 51.