VEDURUPARTHI MOSES NARAYANA Vs. SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jakkamsettu Saraschandra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor (in short J.Dr.) and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for respondent No.1/Decree holder (in short D.Hr.).

(2.) The D.Hr. - Shriram City Union Finance Limited filed ARC.No.822 of 2017 in which the Arbitral Tribunal passed the award dtd. 25/9/2018 for an amount of Rs.4,70,323.00 with subsequent interest against the petitioner and present respondent Nos.2 to 4/J.Dr.Nos.2 to 4. The award was not satisfied. The D.Hr. filed E.P.No.12 of 2022 in the Court of the X Additional District Judge, Narasapur, in which notice was issued to the JDrs. In Execution Petition request was made to issue warrant of arrest against J.Dr.Nos.1 and 2 under Order 21 Rule 22, 37 and 38 of CPC. The J.Dr.No.1 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of decree holder. The D.Hr as also the J.Dr.No.1 adduced the evidence. On behalf of D.Hr., PW1 was examined and on behalf of J.Dr.No.1, Rws.1 and 2 were examined. On consideration of evidence on record, the learned Execution Court recorded the finding that the J.Dr.No.1 has sufficient means to discharge the EP amount. J.Dr.2 remained exparte. The Execution Petition was allowed directing to issue warrant against J.Dr.No.1/the petitioner herein by sending to civil prison for detention to 3 months. Challenging the said order, the present CRP under Sec. 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no means to satisfy the decree or to comply the terms of interim order. He submits that the order of the Execution Court is not correct, as the burden was on the D.Hr to establish that the J.Dr has means to pay and not on the J.Dr.