K V RAMKRISHNA Vs. SATEESH KUMAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent who obtained a decree for recovery of money against the revision petitioner filed E.P. 17 of 2000 seeking attachment and sale of the immovable properties belonging to the revision petitioner. During the pendency of that E.P. respondent filed another E.P. 17 of 2006 seeking arrest and detention of the revision petitioner and filed E.A. 32 of 2006 seeking arrest of the revision petitioner by dispensing with notice under Rule 37 CPC. The executing Court allowed the said petition and ordered arrest of the revision petitioner by the order under revision. Hence this revision.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that inasmuch as respondent is proceeding against the properties of the revision petitioner, he cannot, by filing a second E.P., seek arrest of the revision-petitioner, and thereby curtail his personal liberty. By placing strong reliance on Pothuneedi Laxmana Rao v. Kadasu Muneswara Rao, Badrachalam Suryanarayana v. Lotla Varalaxmi and M. V. Panduranga Rao v. A. Sattar Khan he strongly contended that the order under revision is unsustainable.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that revision petitioner who is well versed in court affairs has been dragging on the proceedings and had not paid even a single pie though he has means to pay and had filed counter in E.P. 17 of 2000 taking a plea that he had discharged the decree debt and when his contention was not accepted he preferred a revision to this Court in C.R.P. No.4522 of 2005 and obtained stay of further proceedings in the E.P., and that interim order was vacated as he failed to comply with the conditional order passed by this Court and ultimately that CRP was also dismissed and as the court has power to grant simultaneous execution and as the revision petitioner is trying to go out of the territorial jurisdiction of the executing Court to defeat and delay the execution, respondent had to file the E.P. for his arrest.