Execution of Decree - against any party - Trial court allowed the E.P. against the execution of decree against surety salary only - their lordships of High court held that From the Judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the decree holder can proceed against any one of the Judgment Debtors and he is not required to proceed against the principal borrower at the first instance.Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is strictly in accordance with law and it does not require any interference in this revision.= Bejjanki Peddiraj ....Petitioner/Judgment Debtor M/s. Lavanya Chit Fund Pvt.Limited, Warangal and others....Respondents/Defendants = 2014 (March. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11092

Execution of Decree - against any party - Trial court allowed the E.P. against the execution of decree against surety salary only - their lordships of High court held that From the Judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the decree holder can proceed against any one of the Judgment Debtors and he is not required to proceed against the principal borrower at the first instance.Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is strictly in accordance
with law and it does not require any interference in this revision.=

"The decree is a money decree against all the defendants-respondents and a
mortgage decree only against defendant-respondent No. 2 so far as the shop is
concerned. The decree does not put any fetter on the right of the decree-holder
to execute it against any party, whether as a money decree or as a mortgage
decree. It is simultaneous and is jointly and severally against all the
defendants-respondents, including the guarantor. It is the right of the decree-
holder to proceed with it in a way he likes. There is nothing in law which
provides a composite decree to be first executed only against the property.
The decree for money is a simple decree against the judgment-debtors, including
the guarantor and in no way subject to the execution of the mortgage decree
against the judgment debtor No. 2-Respondent No. 2. If, on principle, a
guarantor could be sued without even suing the principal- debtor there is no
reason, even if the decretal amount is covered by the mortgage decree to force
the decree-holder to proceed against the mortgaged property first and then to
proceed against the guarantor."
        From the Judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the
decree holder can proceed against any one of the Judgment Debtors and he is not
required to proceed against the principal borrower at the first instance.
        Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is strictly in accordance
with law and it does not require any interference in this revision.
        Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without any order as
to costs.  Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand
closed.

2014 (March. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11092

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO      

CIVIL REVISION CASE No.5335 of 2013  

12-03-2014

Bejjanki Peddiraj ....Petitioner/Judgment Debtor                              
M/s. Lavanya Chit Fund Pvt.Limited, Warangal and
others....Respondents/Defendants

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Ravinder

Counsel for Respondents:       --

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1. 2013 (5) ALD 425
2. 1992 AIR 1740


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO      

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5335 OF 2013    


ORDER:

        Heard the learned counsel appearing for lthe petitioner and the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1./Decree holder.
        This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against
the order dated 22-11-2013 in E.P.No.154 of 2013 in O.S.No.1340 of 2003 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
        The brief facts of the case are that a money decree was passed in favour
of the decree holder and against the Judgment Debtors 1 to 5 for an amount of
Rs.94,450/- (Rupees ninety four thousand, four hundred and fifty only).  The
decree was put to execution in the aforesaid E.P., by the decree holder.  All
the Judgment Debtors were made respondents in the said E.P.  The Decree Holder
opted for execution of the decree against Judgment Debtor No.2 by attachment of
his salary.  The Judgment Debtor No.2 resisted the execution by filing a counter
stating that the decree holder is not supposed to seek execution against him
only who is one of the guarantors, leaving the principal debtor who is Judgment
Debtor No.1 and therefore, the Execution Petition is liable to be dismissed.
        Repelling the contention of the Judgment Debtor No.2, the learned
executing Court held that it is settled law that the decree holder can opt
execution against any of the Judgment Debtor in case the Judgment Debtors are
more than one. The prorogative available to the decree holder in the execution
proceedings cannot be denied at the whims and fancies of Judgment Debtor No.2.
The executing Court also clarified that if the Judgment Debtor No.2 is aggrieved
by the act of the decree holder realizing the decretal amount from him, he can
proceed against the principal borrower (Judgment Debtor NO.1) by filing a suit
for recovery of the amount.
        Thus, rejecting the contention of the Judgment Debtor No.2, the executing
Court ordered attachment of his salary by passing an order under Rule (48) of
Order XXI of C.P.C.  The said order is challenged in the present Civil Revision
Petition.
        Reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner in Jaichand T.Gangwal Vs. Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and
others1, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:-
"The basic obligation to pay the decretal amount is with the prized subscriber.
In case, the 1st respondent finds any difficulty in recovering the amount from
the 2nd respondent, it can certainly take steps against other judgment debtors.
An effort as such must be made against the principal debtor. The proceedings
against one of the guarantors, keeping aside the principal debtor and the other
sureties, would certainly give scope for the collusion between the decree holder
on the one hand and some of the judgment debtors on the other. The only legal
consequence of the liability being joint and several is that the discharge by
one of them, would ensure to the benefit of others. The determination in this
behalf, however, must take place in the presence of all. If the other judgment
debtors are omitted from the array of the parties in the E.P., the one who is
singled out and proceeded against would face handicap in the context of pleading
satisfaction of the decree by others or collusion among the other parties."

        Relying on the afore cited Judgment, the learned counsel submits that the
decree holder has to first proceed against the principal borrower/Judgment
Debtor No.1 and therefore, the E.P., is liable to be dismissed.
        The facts of the case before the learned Single Judge are altogether
different from the facts of the case on hand.  However to understand the legal
position as to the liability of the Judgment Debtors when they are more than
one, it is necessary to look into the following Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Indexport, Registered and others2,
wherein, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"The decree is a money decree against all the defendants-respondents and a
mortgage decree only against defendant-respondent No. 2 so far as the shop is
concerned. The decree does not put any fetter on the right of the decree-holder
to execute it against any party, whether as a money decree or as a mortgage
decree. It is simultaneous and is jointly and severally against all the
defendants-respondents, including the guarantor. It is the right of the decree-
holder to proceed with it in a way he likes. There is nothing in law which
provides a composite decree to be first executed only against the property.
The decree for money is a simple decree against the judgment-debtors, including
the guarantor and in no way subject to the execution of the mortgage decree
against the judgment debtor No. 2-Respondent No. 2. If, on principle, a
guarantor could be sued without even suing the principal- debtor there is no
reason, even if the decretal amount is covered by the mortgage decree to force
the decree-holder to proceed against the mortgaged property first and then to
proceed against the guarantor."
        From the Judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the
decree holder can proceed against any one of the Judgment Debtors and he is not
required to proceed against the principal borrower at the first instance.
        Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is strictly in accordance
with law and it does not require any interference in this revision.
        Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without any order as
to costs.  Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand
closed.
___________________  
R.KANTHA RAO,J  
Date: 12-03-2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.