AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent in E.P.No.20 of 2003 in L.A.O.P.No.3519 of 1991 viz. the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Srisailam Project, Atmakur is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein is the decree-holder (D.Hr.) / award-holder.
Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 22.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool in E.P.No.20 of 2003 in L.A.O.P.No.3519 of 1991, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
The E.P. was filed by the decree-holder in terms of Order XXI Rules 43 and 77 of the CPC seeking attachment and sale of the movables for realisation of the fruits of the decree, claiming dues amounting to Rs.3,02,239.91 paise. An objection was raised contending that the amount claimed by the D.Hr. is excessive and that the E.P. schedule property did not belong to the judgment- debtor(J.Dr).
The learned Executing Court addressed the point as to whether the amount of Rs.488.75/- alleged paid had been duly deducted, which appears to have been the sole objection and answered the point in the affirmative in favour of the D.Hr., while referring to the calculations. The calculations referred to by the learned Executing Court are as follows:
1.Compensation as per High Court Orders 17 X 2500 = Rs.42,500-00
2.30% Solatium on Rs.42,500/- = Rs.12,750-00
Total Rs.55,250-00
3.Less L.A.O. paid Rs. 488-75
Balance Rs.54,761-25
4.Interest at 9% p.a from 29-5-1979 to 29-5-1980 Rs.4,229-50
5.Interest at 15% p.a 30-5-1980 to 25-1-2006 Rs.2,10,715-71
Total Rs.2,69,706-46
6.Less L.A.O. paid on 25-1-2006 Rs.57,777-00
Balance Rs.2,11,929-46
7.Interest at 15% p.a from 26-1-2006 to 19-1-2011 on 54,761-25 Rs.40,911-00
8.Interest at 15% p.a from 20-1-2011 to 23-7-2012 Rs.15,196-00 26-11-2012
Total amount due Rs.2,68,036-46
Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.
The objection of the J.Dr. is that the amount of Rs.488.75/- was not deducted and that interest is also calculated on the said amount. However, it is relevant to note that the said amount is deducted in the calculation made in column no.8 of the E.P. particulars submitted in terms of Order XXI Rule 11 of the C.P.C.
Therefore, the objection with regard to the improper calculation by the D.Hr. is found to be untenable. The other objection is that the property does not belong to the J.Dr. The said objection is also found to be untenable, for the reason that no evidence is placed. However, the Executing Court shall verity the ownership of the vehicles sought to be attached with reference to the information that may be called for from the concerned transport office. Both parities are at liberty to place information related to the ownership of the properties sought to be attached.
For the reasons stated above, no merits are found in the revision petition and this Court finds that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed and the order of the learned Executing Court dated 22.04.2013 are fit to be confirmed.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the Executing Court may proceed with the further process of execution as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.