Telangana High Court
CRP/5583/2011 of Thummala Krishna Rao Vs Ruttala Kondababu on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5583 of 2011 Dated:29.12.2011 Between: Thummala Krishna Rao. …Petitioner and Ruttala Kondababu. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5583 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5583 of 2011Dated:29.12.2011
Between:
Thummala Krishna Rao.
…Petitioner
and
Ruttala Kondababu.
…Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5583 of 2011
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 petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.17 of 2010. The respondent herein after obtaining a money decree inO.S.No.29 of 2007 filed the said E.P on the file of the Court of theJunior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. In the E.P he sought arrest ofthe judgment debtor on the ground that though he had means topay the decretal amount, he is avoiding to pay the same. Thepetitioner opposed the E.P holding that he had no means to paythe decretal amount.
The execution Court conducted enquiry. The decree holderexamined two witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, and the petitionerexamined himself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1, which is a copy ofthe sale notice issued by the Bank of India, Anakapalli, in Eenadudaily edition, showing that the property (shop and house) owned bythe judgment debtor were auctioned by the Bank of India forrecovery of the money advanced by them to the judgment debtor.
On considering the evidence on record, especially the crossexamination of R.W.1 (judgment debtor), the lower Court recordeda finding that he had means to pay the decretal amount, butavoided to pay the same. Accordingly, the E.P was alloweddirecting issue of arrest warrant.
After considering the submissions made by the Counsel andperusing the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, thisCourt does not find any error apparent on the face of the recordwarranting interference. The finding of fact is recorded based onthe evidence and the finding cannot be termed as perverse.
The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit, and thesame is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as tocosts.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
29.12.2011vs