K SITARAMA RAO Vs. D USHA SUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This CRP is filed against the order in E.P.No.135/1987 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, West Godavari at Eluru dated 27-1-1997 holding that the decree holder-respondent No.l is at liberty to proceed against the properties of the revision petitioner and directing further steps in that regard.

(2.) Respondent No.l obtained a decree in O.S.No.68/1979 against respondent No.2-firm and its partners respondent Nos.3, 4 and revision petitioner for recovery of Rs.68,164/- with subsequent interest at 15% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and costs. She filed E.P. No.164/1985 earlier, but the same was dismissed as not pressed. She then filed the present E.P., viz., E.P.No.135/1987 seeking sale of half of the E.P. schedule property for realisation of the decretal amount. It is stated that the decree was not satisfied and that the E.P. schedule property was already attached before judgment. The E.P. is resisted by the revision petitioner- judgment debtor No.3. Three grounds are raised in the counter: One objection is that attachment before judgment ordered in I.A.No.717/1979 in O.S. No.68/1979 in respect of half share of the minor son late Ravi Kumar of the revision petitioner has been raised in I.A.No.1413/1980 and the other half has been attached in O.S.No.55/1978 which is the subject matter of A.S. No.1244/1980 on the file of High Court and an E.P. is filed for sale of that property. Second objection is that an amount of Rs.36,000/- deposited by respondent No.4 herein in the Union Bank of India, Eluru, was attached in I.A.No.717/1979 and respondent No.1- decree holder received this amount and the same was admitted by her and her husband in their written agreement on 31-1-1984. Third objection is that there was a compromise between the parties and an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- has been paid in full satisfaction of all the decrees in different suits in different Courts obtained by respondent No.l and her husband apart from the amount of Rs.36,000/- stated above. It is thus asserted that the decree in O.S.No.68/1979 is fully satisfied and the E.P. is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The learned Additional Subordinate Judge held enquiry in the E.P. in view of various contentions raised in the counter filed by the revision petitioner. Respondent No.l-decree holder examined herself as PW-1 and she also examined her husband as PW-2 while revision petitioner examined himself as RW-1 and son of respondent No.4 is examined as RW-2. Exs.B-1 to B-5 have been marked on their behalf. After close scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, he repelled all the contentions raised by the revision petitioner and directed further steps in the E.P. Aggrieved by the above order, the revision petitioner-judgment debtor No.3 came in revision to this Court.