THOTA VENKATASUBBAIAH Vs. ANKIREDDY SADASIVAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed OS No.157 of 2003 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, against the 1st respondent for recovery of certain amount. Alleging that the 1st respondent was about to leave India, the petitioner filed IA No.409 of 2003, under Order 38 Rule 1 CPC, with a view to cause his arrest. The trial Court passed an order, directing the production of the 1st respondent in the Court. The 2nd respondent offered himself as a surety, to ensure the presence of the 1 st respondent. Taking the same on record, the trial Court passed an order, directing release of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the suit was decreed, ex parte, on 29.3.2005.

(2.) The petitioner filed IA No.329 of 2005, under Order 38 Rule 2 CPC with a prayer to issue notice to the 2nd respondent, directing him to cause production of the 1st respondent, and in default, to pay the decretal amount. The 2nd respondent alone was made party to the IA. Through its order dated 15.7.2009, the trial Court dismissed the IA. Hence, this CRP.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court failed to take into account the fact that, by offering himself as surety, the 2nd respondent has undertaken not only to ensure the presence of the defendant in the suit, but also the discharge of debt, under the decree.