JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The judgment-debtor in E:P.No.44/99 is the petitioner in this revision.
(2.)The petitioner filed O.S.No.25 of 1991 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, for recovery of certain amount from the respondent. The suit was dismissed with costs on 19-11-1996 and it became final. The respondent filed E.P.No.44/99 under Order 21 Rule 11-A for arrest of the petitioner herein on the ground that though he possessed sufficient means, he did not deposit the costs awarded in the decree. The executing court ordered the arrest of the petitioner by order dated 31-1-2000. The petitioner challenges the same in this revision.
(3.)Sri C.V. Nagarguna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order under revision is passed in utter disregard of the provisions of the Order 21 Rules 37 and 40 and Section 55 of the C.P.C. and the same cannot be sustained in law. He submits that the executing court, having issued a notice under Order 21 Rule 37 (1), had chosen to proceed with the examination of the decree-holder i.e. the respondent herein, and passed an order directing the arrest. The procedure adopted by the executing court is not in conformity with Rule 40.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.