OR.21, RULE 37 C.P.C - BOTH ARE BROTHERS - ARE IN ADVANCED AGE - HIGH COURT DIRECTED TO PAY MONTHLY EQUAL INSTALLMENTS - FAILING WHICH EXECUTION OF DECREE AS PER LAW = PETITIONER RESPONDENT PANTA SRINIVASULA REDDY VS PANTA GOPALA REDDY =2014 (March . Part ) http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=644&year=2014

OR.21, RULE 37 C.P.C - ARREST E.P. - BOTH ARE BROTHERS - ARE IN ADVANCED AGE - HIGH COURT DIRECTED TO PAY MONTHLY EQUAL INSTALLMENTS - FAILING WHICH EXECUTION OF DECREE AS PER LAW =
In the circumstances and having regard to the relationship between the parties and their ages, the petitioner herein is directed to pay or deposit the decretal amount at the rate of Rs.20,000/- in equal monthly installments, on or before 5th of every succeeding month, commencing from the month of March, 2014, and the remaining amount in the last month, of course this shall be subject to the amounts, if any, already paid/deposited by the petitioner herein.  If the petitioner fails to deposit any one of the installments, the Court below may pass appropriate orders.
2014 (March . Part ) http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=644&year=2014
CRP 644 / 2014
CRPSR 6055 / 2010
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
PANTA SRINIVASULA REDDY  VSPANTA GOPALA REDDY
PET.ADV. : SURESH KUMAR POTTURIRESP.ADV. : LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
SUBJECT: C.P.C.DISTRICT:  NELLORE

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.644 of 2014
ORDER:                              
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16.11.2009, in E.P.No.42 of 2009 in O.S.No.895 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent are the brothers.  The respondent filed O.S.No.895 of 2004 and obtained a money decree against the petitioner on 04.05.2006.  Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred A.S.No.171 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on 04.04.2008.  Since no further grievance raised therefrom, the judgment and decree passed in the suit against the petitioner became final and accordingly, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.42 of 2009 seeking to arrest and detain the petitioner in a civil prison.  There is no need to consider the other aspects. 

The petitioner herein was examined as R.W.1.  In the cross examination, he has admitted that he got 12.72 cents of wet land to his share in the family partition and it gives crop and yield.  The respondent herein, who is the decree holder, was examined as P.W.1 and in the cross examination, he admitted that he got attached the house and land property of the petitioner herein.  Admittedly, the respondent obtained a decree on 04.05.2006 in the suit and till this date, the petitioner has not paid any amount to him.

In the circumstances and having regard to the relationship between the parties and their ages, the petitioner herein is directed to pay or deposit the decretal amount at the rate of Rs.20,000/- in equal monthly installments, on or before 5th of every succeeding month, commencing from the month of March, 2014, and the remaining amount in the last month, of course this shall be subject to the amounts, if any, already paid/deposited by the petitioner herein.  If the petitioner fails to deposit any one of the installments, the Court below may pass appropriate orders.

Subject to the directions made supra, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.
_______________________

         (B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J)

24th February, 2014
GHN



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.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

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.