P LAXMA REDDY Vs. SYNDICATE BANK ZAHEERABAD BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner borrowed certain amount from the first respondent. Since he failed to repay the same, the first respondent filed O.S.No.23 of 1988 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The suit was decreed. After it became final, the first respondent filed E.P.No.30 of 1996. Initially, an item of immovable property was attached. Alleging that the sale of the property had to be adjourned for want of bidders, due to interference by the petitioner and other judgment-debtors, the first respondent filed E. A. No.300 of 2004 under Order XXI Rule 21 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit it to take simultaneous execution for arrest of the petitioner as well as to proceed against the property.

(2.) The petitioner filed the counter affidavit stating that the property that was attached in the execution does not belong to him, and that it was held by his father late P.Pandarinath Reddy and on his death, it became the joint family property of his mother, brothers and sisters. He stated that he never caused any obstruction and the application cannot be maintained. The executing Court passed a docket order, dated 31 -3-2005 permitting the first respondent to take simultaneous execution against the petitioner. It straightaway issued warrant of arrest of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision petition.

(3.) Sri R.Gopi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grant of permission to take simultaneous execution under Order XXI Rule 21 C.P.C. is an extraordinary step and it is only after recording findings on the various ingredients for such a step, that it could have ordered. He submits that even in such a case, the executing Court is under obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 51 C.P.C. and only when it is found that the case falls under any one of the instances referred to therein that the arrest could have been ordered. He further contends that the order under revision runs contrary to the procedure prescribed for arrest of judgment-debtors under Rules 11-A, 37, 40 of Order XXI and Section 55 C.P.C. He placed reliance upon certain precedents, in support of his contention.