MOKATI GANGAYYA RANGAPPA Vs. SATYAVOLU PAPARAO LAKSHMIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravathi, representing Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners-Judgment Debtors and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel representing the respondent-Decree Holder.

(2.) The civil revision petition is filed as against the order, dated 15.04.2002 in E.P.No.120 of 1997 in O.S.No.77 of 1981 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The said E.P was filed under order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as Code for the purpose of convenience) praying for attachment of properties and detention of the revision petitioners-Judgment Debtors for non-compliance of the directions made in A.S.No.12 of 1989 on the file of II-Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. The learned I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry on the strength of Ex.A.1 and A.2, the office copy of reply by decree holder to the notice sent by Judgment Debtor No. 1 and registered notices issued by Judgment Debtor No.1 through his advocate, had issued warrant as per clause 3 of the decree in A.S.No.12 of 1989 aforesaid by 25.04.2002. Aggrieved by the same the present civil revision petition is preferred.

(3.) Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel represeniting the revision petitioners Judgment Debtors would contend that the exchange of notices would clearly go to show that the directions in fact had been complied with. But despite the same, only to harass the revision petitioners, the respondent had thought of this E.P. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the respective notices and the stand taken by the respective parties in this regard. The learned counsel also would submit that the learned Judge erred in ordering the attachment of property without deciding E.A.No. 1229 of 1997 which was filed for appointment of advocate commissioner. The learned counsel also would submit that this is a matter concerned with the compliance of the directions made by the appellate Court in A.S.No. 12 of 1989 aforesaid and it is not a simple case of money decree and non-satisfaction thereof and hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the impugned order may have to be set aside. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on AMBATI NARSAYYA VS. M. SUBBARAO. AIR 1990 SC 119