Telangana High Court
CRP/2447/2009 of Kureti Bhaskara Rao Vs Mailapalli Srinivasa Rao on 30 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.2447 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is judgment debtor No.2 in the suit in O.S.No.305 of 2000 filed by the 1st respondent/decree holder against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein, who is judgment debtor No.1. The said suit was decreed on
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAHC.R.P.No.2447 of 2009
ORDER:
The petitioner herein is judgment debtor No.2 in the suit inO.S.No.305 of 2000 filed by the 1[st] respondent/decree holder against thepetitioner and the 2[nd] respondent herein, who is judgment debtorNo.1. The said suit was decreed on 23-03-2006 for a sum of Rs.6,00,129/-. As the decretal amount was not paid, the 1[st] respondent-decree holderfiled E.P.No.79 of 2006 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of CPC seekingarrest of the petitioner herein as well as the 2[nd] respondent. The courtbelow vide its order, dated 28-04-2009, allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
The petitioner herein filed a counter before the court below statingthat previously he was running a cycle shop and presently, he is not doingany business due to ill-health and became insolvent and, therefore, he hasno sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and he also filed I.P.No.59of 2006 to declare him as an insolvent and the same was dismissed,against which, he preferred A.S.No.91 of 2008 and the same is said tohave been pending.
The court below, while allowing E.P.No.79 of 2006, recorded afinding that the judgment debtor by suppressing the fact of running a hotelbusiness in the year 2007 filed I.P. in the year 2006 and, therefore, itcannot be said that the petitioner is not having sufficient means to pay thedecretal amount.
From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear thatI.P.No.59 of 2008 filed by the petitioner seeking to declare him as aninsolvent was dismissed. If the petitioner has no means or properties, thequestion of dismissing his insolvency petition does not arise. But,however, I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to theappeal pending against the dismissal of I.P.No.59 of 2006. Therefore, Iam of the opinion that the court below rightly allowed the said applicationand I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order, soas to call for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it isalways open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in the appeal, if anypending, against the dismissal of I.P.No.59 of 2006. There shall be noorder as to costs.
___________30-12-2011
Prv