E.P. - Payment - Receipt - should be filed within 30 days and should be certified by the Dhr - else not maintainable = any such receipt has to be filed within 30 days and get the full satisfaction recorded and as the judgment-debtor has not done these two aspects, the Court below rightly dismissed the application = Nothing is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to how she got the custody of that document when she assertively stated in her chief affidavit that the alleged document was in possession of D.Venkata Ramana and that she wants to examine him to produce the document. As rightly pointed out by advocate for decree-holder even if such a receipt is in existence, judgment-debtor is expected to file that receipt into the Court within 30 days from the date of receipt and get the full satisfaction recorded. But, admittedly no such steps are taken and considering these aspects, the trial Court dismissed the application. I do not find any wrong in the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge nor any jurisdictional error to interfere by exercising the revisional powers. When judgmentdebtor is a judicial employee, she should be more cautious and burden is heavy on her to get the full satisfaction recorded in accordance with law. For these reasons, I am of the view that the revision is devoid of merits and that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of trial Court. 8. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.


CRP 757 / 2016CRPSR 15309 / 2015CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
D LAKSHMI NARASAMMA, KADAPA CITY  VSK KAMAKSHAMMA, KADAPA CITY


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.757 of 2016
ORDER : This revision is preferred questioning order dated 06.02.2015 in E.A.No.150 of 2014 in E.P.No.127 of 2014 in O.S.No.139 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.
2. The revision petitioner herein is judgment-debtor in the above referred E.P. and in that E.P., E.A.No.150 of 2014 is filed to reopen the execution petition and to receive document dated 16.03.2014 said to be a receipt passed by decree-holder in token of receipt of decretal amount and that application was resisted by decreeholder on the ground that judgment-debtor has come up with manipulated receipt and the custody of the document is also not properly explained and if really there was a receipt of that nature, it has to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt into the Court and on these grounds, prayed for dismissal of the application. The Court below on a consideration of contentions and rival contentions of both parties, dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that judgment-debtor has paid the entire amount to decreeholder in the presence of elders by name S. Subba Reddy and D.Venkata Ramana, residents of Nabikot Street, Kadapa, on 16.03.2014 and decree-holder also issued a receipt in token of that amount and handed over the receipt to the mediators and as the judgment-debtor has not received the said receipt from the mediators, in order to prove the discharge, document has to be received as evidence and judgment-debtor has filed application to reopen the case and also to receive the document and the Court below without giving any opportunity to judgment-debtor dismissed the application. He submitted that an opportunity may be given to revision petitioner to prove her case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondentdecree-holder submitted that revision petitioner is a judicial employee and no prudent person would fail to keep such receipt with her if really amount is paid to decree-holder. He further submitted that any such receipt has to be filed within 30 days and get the full satisfaction recorded and as the judgment-debtor has not done these two aspects, the Court below rightly dismissed the application and that there is no jurisdictional error in the order of lower Court to interfere.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is: Whether the order dated 06.02.2015 in E.A.No.150 of 2014 in E.P.No.127 of 2014 in O.S.No.139 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, is legal, proper and correct? 
POINT :
7. As seen from the record, judgment-debtor is examined herself as RW.1 and in her chief-examination she stated that she paid the entire amount to decreeholder in the presence of S.Subba Reddy and D.Venkata Ramana and decree-holder passed a receipt in their presence and receipt was handed over to the mediator by name D.Venkata Ramana and it is now under the custody of D.Venkata Ramana and as she has discharged the entire amount, E.P. has to be dismissed. She further stated in her chief-examination that she is taking necessary steps to examine the said mediator to give evidence in the above E.P. by producing the receipt before the Court. This chief-affidavit was dated 11.11.2014 and the application is filed in December, 2014 to reopen the case on behalf of petitioner. If really the revision petitioner is prudent and interested, she ought to have filed a petition to summon the mediators to support her version of discharge. But, she only filed petition to reopen the case, that means after closure of her evidence she came forward with reopen petition to receive document dated 16.03.2014. Nothing is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to how she got the custody of that document when she assertively stated in her chief affidavit that the alleged document was in possession of D.Venkata Ramana and that she wants to examine him to produce the document. As rightly pointed out by advocate for decree-holder even if such a receipt is in existence, judgment-debtor is expected to file that receipt into the Court within 30 days from the date of receipt and get the full satisfaction recorded. But, admittedly no such steps are taken and considering these aspects, the trial Court dismissed the application. I do not find any wrong in the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge nor any jurisdictional error to interfere by exercising the revisional powers. When judgmentdebtor is a judicial employee, she should be more cautious and burden is heavy on her to get the full satisfaction recorded in accordance with law. For these reasons, I am of the view that the revision is devoid of merits and that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of trial Court. 8. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
9. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. __________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J 14 th June 2016. mar

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.