D. Suneetha Vs. Putta Ramanaiah

D. Suneetha vs Putta Ramanaiah

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Aug 16, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/440122

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/440122
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
Decided On: Aug 16, 2005
Case Number: Civil Revision Petn. No. 2761 of 2005
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 4. I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for revision-petitioner, because it is well known that executing Court has to execute the decree as it is, and cannot convert a decree into an instalment decree.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D. Suneetha

Respondent

Putta Ramanaiah

Advocate P. Ganga Rami Reddy, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: AIR2005AP470

Excerpt

- - 4. i find force in the contention of the learned counsel for revision-petitioner, because it is well known that executing court has to execute the decree as it is, and cannot convert a decree into an instalment decree......counsel for revision-petitioner is that since executing court has no power to grant instalments, the order under revision is unsustainable.3. though served respondent did not put in his appearance.4. i find force in the contention of the learned counsel for revision-petitioner, because it is well known that executing court has to execute the decree as it is, and cannot convert a decree into an instalment decree. if the respondent wanted to pay the decretal amount in instalments, he ought to have approached the court on the original side seeking an instalment decree. if the judgment-debtor fails to do so the execut ing court has to execute the decree as it is but cannot grant instalments in a petition for execution of the money decree.5. in a petition for arrest of the judgment-debtor, the executing court has to consider the evidence on record and find out whether the judgment-debtor has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and is avoiding to pay the amount and pass appropriate orders, but cannot convert the decree into an instalment decree and so, the order under revision is set aside and the case is remitted to the executing court for considering the evidence on record and pass appropriate orders in the e.p. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

C.Y. Somayajulu, J.

1. In a decree for money obtained by her, revision-petitioner filed an E.P. seeking arrest of the respondent/Judgment Debtor. Respondent filed his counter contending that except the salary being received by him, he has no other source of income and so he cannot be arrested. In support of, her case, revision-petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1 and the respondent examined himself as R.W. 1. No documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties. The executing Court, after considering the evidence on record, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 3.000/- per month on or before 3rd of every succeeding month and directed his arrest in the event of the respondent's tailure to pay the instalments. Hence, this revision by the decree holder.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for revision-petitioner is that since executing Court has no power to grant instalments, the order under revision is unsustainable.

3. Though served respondent did not put in his appearance.

4. I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for revision-petitioner, because it is well known that executing Court has to execute the decree as it is, and cannot convert a decree into an instalment decree. If the respondent wanted to pay the decretal amount in instalments, he ought to have approached the Court on the original side seeking an instalment decree. If the judgment-debtor fails to do so the execut ing Court has to execute the decree as it is but cannot grant instalments in a petition for execution of the money decree.

5. In a petition for arrest of the judgment-debtor, the executing Court has to consider the evidence on record and find out whether the judgment-debtor has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and is avoiding to pay the amount and pass appropriate orders, but cannot convert the decree into an instalment decree and so, the order under revision is set aside and the case is remitted to the executing Court for considering the evidence on record and pass appropriate orders in the E.P. No costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties D. Suneetha vs Putta Ramanaiah Same Subject Civil Same Judge C.Y. Somayajulu, J.

Civil