Executing court can not apportion liabilities of Jdrs = When the respondents-judgments debtors failed to pay the amount, the decree holder filed E.P.No.80 of 2015 before the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, seeking to issue warrants and realize the award amount from the salaries of the respondents. The trial Court on 24.04.2015 issued warrants against respondents 1, 2, 3 & 4 for recovering an amount of Rs.48,027/- each towards their portion of liability. =there is no provision of sharing the decretal amount among the judgment-debtors. Under law, the decree-holder can execute the decree against any one of the judgment-debtors or all of them. The order passed by the Executing Court is therefore, erroneous and misconceived.

CRP 436 / 2016
CRPSR 1283 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
MARGADARSI CHIT FUND, SECUNDERABAD  VSP. PREETAM SINGH, HYD & FOUR OTHERS
PET.ADV. : DURGA PRASADRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  HYDERABAD

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DR B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
C.R.P.No.436 of 2016
ORDER: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao)
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order dated 24.04.2015 passed in E.P.No.80 of 2015 in ABR/CF/No.434 of 2014 by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.
The Revision Petitioner is the decree holder, who filed ABR.CF.No.434 of 2014 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Erragadda, Hyderabad (South), for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,06,039/- against the respondents-judgment debtors.
The said case was disposed of on 15.11.2014 directing respondents 1 to 5 to jointly and severally pay the disputed claim amount of Rs.2,06,039/- with interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. 
When the respondents-judgments debtors failed to pay the amount, the decree holder filed E.P.No.80 of 2015 before the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, seeking to issue warrants and realize the award amount from the salaries of the respondents. 
The trial Court on 24.04.2015 issued warrants against respondents 1, 2, 3 & 4 for recovering an amount of Rs.48,027/- each towards their portion of liability.
Challenging the same, the present revision has been preferred.
 Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that there is no provision of sharing the decretal amount among the judgment-debtors. 
He further submits that in the Execution Petition, the Executing Court erroneously passed the order apportioning liability among the respondentsjudgment debtors 1 to 4.
Under law, the decree-holder can execute the decree against any one of the judgment-debtors or all of them. The order passed by the Executing Court is therefore, erroneous and misconceived. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The petitioner-decree holder is at liberty to execute the decree taking recourse to any method for recovering the decretal amount from one or all other Judgment Debtors. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO __________________________________ JUSTICE DR B.SIVA SANKARA RAO 18 th April, 2016 rkk

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.

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