GARRE VENKATA LAKSHMINARAYANNA Vs. MEDARAMETLA SARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.S.A. is filed by the appellant-petitioner in I.P.No.17 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. The appellant stated that he incurred Several debts during the course of his business and sustained heavy losses In it. It is also alleged that the respondents herein filed O.S.Nos.247 and 248 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili, and obtained decrees against him and filed E.P.Nos.49 and 50 of 2003 thereafter, for a sum of Rs.70,352/- and Rs.73,170/-, respectively. It was his case that he preferred appeals before this Court and on account of his Insolvency, he could not comply with the condition of deposit of Rs.25,000/- In the E.P., as directed by this Court. With this and other allied allegations, he prayed the trial Court to declare him as insolvent by filing I.P.

(2.) The respondents opposed the application. According to them, the appellant possessed vast extents of movable and Immovable properties and that his efforts are only to defeat the claims under the decrees. Through its order, dated 29.11.2005, the trial Court dismissed the I.P. The appellant filed A.S.No.6 of 2006 in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Ongole. The appeal was also dismissed on 27.04.2006. Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Court below proceeds on hyper technical grounds in dismissing the claim of the appellant. He contends that the existence of a locker in the joint names of the appellant and his brother-in-law, PW.2, cannot be taken as a factor for dismissing the I.P. He states that though the locker was maintained jointly, the appellant did not keep any property belonging to him in that locker.

(3.) By the time the appellant filed the I.P., the respondents herein obtained decrees and filed execution petitions. Even according to the appellant, he filed appeals before this Court against the decrees and obtained an order of conditional stay. This Court granted Interim directions on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.25,000/-, in each of the E.P. Admittedly, this condition was not complied with. It is at a later stage that the I.P. was filed with a plea that the appellant is not possessed of any movable or immovable properties. In schedule-B of the I.P., a dilapidated thatched house and a mud terraced house at Konakanamitla Village, were shown.