PATNAN VENKATARAMANA Vs. MUTNURU VENKATARAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O.S.No.243 of 2003 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, against the petitioner, for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,600/-. After contest by the petitioner herein, the trial Court decreed the suit on 15-9-2004. The decree became final, since the petitioner did not prefer any appeal. Thereupon, the respondent filed E.P.No.1 of 2005 under Rule 37 of Order XXICPC, stating that despite possessing adequate means, the petitioner did not pay the decretal amount. He ultimately prayed for the arrest of the petitioner. After following the procedure prescribed, the trial Court allowed the E.P. on 5-12-2005, recording a finding to the effect that despite possessing adequate means, the petitioner did not pay the decretal amount and ultimately directed his detention in civil prison. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Sri K. Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except making a vague and general observation that the petitioner had adequate means, the executing Court did not support its conclusion, with any material or reasons. He contends that the petitioner is having only a share in the properties mentioned in the order and that he is drawing a salary of hardly Rs.3,000/- per month. He contends that if the respondent was of the view that the petitioner is possessed of any properties, it was always open to him to proceed against them.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had deliberately omitted to honour the decree and that the order under revision does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity.