Telangana High Court
CRP/342/2010 of Bandi Venkateswara rao Vs Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited on 30 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.342 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners herein are the judgment debtor Nos.2,4,6 and 9 vide judgment and decree dated 2.1.2006 passed in O.S.No.37 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for a sum of Rs.1,63,655/- along
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.342 of 2010
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.
ORDER:
The petitioners herein are the judgment debtor Nos.2,4,6 and 9 videjudgment and decree dated 2.1.2006 passed in O.S.No.37 of 2003 on the fileof the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for a sum of Rs.1,63,655/- alongwith subsequent interest. As the decretal amount was not paid, the 1[st]respondent/Decree Holder has filed E.P.No.105 of 2006 in O.S.No.37 of2003 against the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C for attachment oftheir salaries and to send the same to the Execution Court as per the decree.
2. A counter was filed before the Execution Court by the petitioners hereinstating that they are only surety holders to the judgment debtor No.1 and filing of the E.P against some of the judgment debtors to realize the decretalamount without mentioning any reasons for not proceeding against theprincipal debtor No.1 for realization of the decretal amount, and hence theE.P is not maintainable and the decree holder cannot proceed against theother judgment debtors.
3. In fact, the judgment debtors filed C.M.A No.23 of 2007 on the file of theDistrict Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, which was dismissed on2.9.2009 and the same has become final and therefore, the attachment of thesalary of the petitioners herein was already executed and, infact, theattachment was made absolute and recording the same the E.P was closedas the amounts were already attached and recovered. However, when thedecree has been passed against the defendants jointly and severally, itcannot be said that it is not open for the plaintiff to proceed against some orone of the judgment debtors. Therefore, it is for the decree holder to proceedagainst the solvent and appropriate persons for recovery of the decretalamount. Hence, I do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise, to interfere withthe impugned order.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as tocosts.
___________________
V. ESWARAIAH,J.
Date:30.12.2011
Gk.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.342 of 2010
Gk.
Date:30.12.2011