THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5546 and 5510 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of the same proceedings between the same parties. Hence, they are being taken up together for disposal. The petitioner in these two revisions is the defendant in the proceedings, which has been filed by the respondent herein in a suit being O.S.No.847 of 2008 on the file of the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction. The claim of the petitioner is that the suit has been filed by showing the number of the premises, which has been acquired for the purpose of road widening, and further, the petitioner has been set ex parte and no notice has been issued and no opportunity was given and that there has been ex parte decree passed on 31.12.2009. In pursuance of the said ex parte decree, E.P.No.19 of 2010 under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C has been laid on 02.11.2010. In the said E.P., E.A.No.9 of 2010 has been filed seeking protection of possession. The same was ordered on 10.11.2010 without notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.5546 of 2010. She also filed A.S.(SR).No.386518 of 2010 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the ex parte decree, dated 31.12.2009, passed in O.S.No.847 of 2008. The said appeal was returned by the lower appellate Court with certain objections. As against the same, C.R.P.No.5510 of 2010 has been filed. During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that the petitioner has filed I.A.No.514 of 2010 in O.S.No.847 of 2008 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 31.12.2009, and the same is still pending consideration. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is to be seen that in the suit, which has been filed for perpetual injunction, admittedly, the petitioner was set ex parte and the ex parte decree was passed and again, the respondent obtained ex parte orders of police protection. The application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree in I.A.No.514 of 2010 is still pending. In view of the above and especially, in view of the fact that the petitioner was not given any opportunity and all the proceedings were not on merits after contest from both sides, it is quite desirable that the matter can be disposed of on merits after giving opportunity to both sides. In the circumstances, C.R.P.No.5546 of 2010 is allowed and the orders passed in E.A.No.9 of 2010 as well as E.P.No.19 of 2010 shall stand set aside. However, to give fair opportunity to both the parties and pass orders on merits after contest in the main suit itself, and in the interests of justice, the application stated to have been filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.514 of 2010 also allowed and the ex parte decree, dated 31.12.2009, in O.S.No.847 of 2008 obtained by the respondent-decree holder, stands set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for disposal of the main suit itself after giving notice and opportunity to both sides, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall file written statement within four (4) weeks from today. In view of the orders passed as above, C.R.P.No.5510 of 2010 stands dismissed, since it does not necessitate. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J Dt: 21.01.2011 kdl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4606 of 2008 ORDER: Heard both sides and at their request, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The petitioner is the decree holder. He filed this revision, seeking to assail the order, dated 30.09.2008, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, dismissing E.P.No.162 of 2007 in O.S.No.463 of 2005, filed under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C., wherein the petitioner sought to arrest and detention of the respondent-judgment debtor, who is the respondent herein. The brief facts are that the petitioner had obtained a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,350/-, on 17.10.2006. Since the liability was not discharged, he laid the present execution petition for arrest of the respondent, in view of the fact that in spite of having sufficient means, he is avoiding to discharge the same. The Court below, after considering the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that the properties held by the respondent were already transferred in the name of his daughters on 12.12.2007 and 24.11.2007, and no property is in his possession and dismissed the execution petition since the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent has sufficient means from the date of decree to pay the amount. Questioning the same, the present revision has been filed. From a perusal of the entire material available on record, it transpires that admittedly, the petitioner obtained decree on 17.10.2006, whereas the alleged transfer of property in favour of daughters of the respondent is on 12.12.2007 and 24.11.2007 i.e. after filing the execution petition. Now the question that falls for consideration is as to whether the transfer of the property in favour of the daughter of the respondent would in any manner relieve the respondent from discharging the liability under the decree? The order impugned clearly discloses that the judgment debtor, after passing of decree, transferred his property in favour of his daughters, but that cannot be a ground to defeat or delay the creditor, inasmuch as, as per Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, every transfer of immoveable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor shall be voidable. This aspect has not been considered by the court below. On that ground, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below for fresh consideration. The Court below shall take into consideration the aforesaid observation and pass appropriate orders on merits after giving opportunity to both sides. __________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) Dated: 26.03.2009 Kdl