THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5441 of 2005 ORDER: Heard both sides. The grievance of the petitioner is that as he has deposited the decretal amount within the stipulated time, the Court below except stating as to his failure to intimate it about deposit of the same, has not recorded any reasons and passed the order, dated 16.08.2005 in E.P.No.38 of 2003 in O.S.No.236 of 2000 directing him to take back the amount which he deposited, while issuing sale certificate. Hence, this revision. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is seen that since the deposit is in the Court only and necessarily, the Court has to verify from its own records and nothing as such can be put against the parties. Further, merely because the counsel could not inform the Court, the same cannot be a ground to mulct with such liabilities and penalties upon the party. In view of the same, the matter requires to be considered afresh. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The matter is remanded to the executing Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J Dated: 22.07.2010 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