AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sambasiva Rao
The decree-holder in small cause suit No. 320 of 1969 in the court of the District Munsif, Chittoor is the petitioner before me. This is a revision under S. 25 of the provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The petitioner obtained a decree in the year 1959. After obtaining the decree he made four unsuccessful attempts to execute the decree by filing Execution Petitions. The present one is the fifth execution petition filed in 1970. Since the full address of the judgment-debtor was not given in the execution petition, it was returned twice for furnishing that address. The counsel for the decree holder re-presented the execution petition both the times. Ostensibly the full address of the judgment-debtor was not given. So, on 16th July, 1971 the Court made the following order: Previous return No. 2 not complied. Fly sheet should be attached. Returned, Time 1 week.
Surprisingly, after returning the execution petition for certain requirements and giving one week''s time for compliance therewith on the same day the court rejected the execution petition saying that the address of the judgement debtor was not furnished inspite of two returns. This order of rejection is petently wrong in in view of the earlier order returning the execution petition and granting one week''s time for compliance with requirements. Once the court chose to return the execution petition and to give one week''s time for compliance, it cannot reject the execution petition before the time it has itself granted.
So the rejection of the execution petition is wrong. The revision petition is allowed and the order of rejection of the lower court is set aside and the matter is sent back to the court below for proceeding with the unnumbered execution petition in accordance with law. Since the respondent, though served on 12-9-7, has not chosen to appear. I make no order as to costs of this revision petition.