(1.) These are two Civil Revision Petitions which arise out of a single judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, West Godavari, at Eluru, by which he disposed of two appeals C.M.A. Nos. 10 and 15 of 1953. Those appeals were from the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Eluru passed in E.A. Nos. 151 and 152 of 1951 in O.S. No. 52 of 1948.
(2.) The petitioner before me is one of the defendants against whom the respondent got a decree for partition and for past and future profits On an execution petition filed in relation to the past profits, the standing crops in possession of the judgment-debtors were attached. The decree-holder applied for immediate sale thereof, but on the petition filed by the 2nd judgment-debtor (the petitioner herein) the Court directed that he might continue in possession and cut the crops, heap them in the presence of the decree-holder but that thereafter he should not remove the crops and should take further instructions from the Court. The undertaking given to this effect by the petitioner was not honoured. The decree-holder, therefore, applied for the appointment of a receiver. The receiver was appointed by the Court but when he went to take possession of the property, he found neither the hay nor the paddy existing on the fields. He reported accordingly. The decree-holder thereupon filed two petitions E.A. Nos. 151 and 152 of 1951. In the first application he made a request that the defendants-respondents should, for violation of the undertaking given, be committed to civil prison for contempt of Court. In the second application he applied to the Court to lodge a complaint under sections 206 and 379 of Indian Penal Code against the defendants for having fraudulently removed the paddy and disposed it of stealthily.
(3.) The Subordinate Judge, after due enquiry, came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtors had not committed any offence complained against them by the decree-holder and therefore dismissed both the applications with costs.