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 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
MARGADARSI CHIT FUND, SECUNDERABAD VS P. PREETAM SINGH, HYD & FOUR OTHERS
PET.ADV. : DURGA PRASAD RESP.ADV. :
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227 DISTRICT: 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

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.