1 RRR, J C.R.P.No.982 of 2025 APHC010177872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 982/2025 Between: ChittiDhanunjay and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Palla Satya Deva Pavan Kumar ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. THOTA S V L NARASIMHASWAMY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Dr.SATTARU RAJANI The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri Thota S.V.L. Narasimha Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Dr. Sattaru Rajani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.782 of 2012 before the VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, for recovery of money. The said suit came to be decreed by the judgment and decree, dated 07.04.2015. Thereafter, the respondent had filed E.P.No.181 of 2015 for 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.982 of 2025 recovery of the decretal amount by attachment and adjustment of the post retirement benefits of the petitioner. However, the said Execution Petition came to be closed as the post retirement benefits had been disbursed to the petitioner even before the orders of the trial Court could be complied. 3. Subsequently, the respondent again moved E.P.No.53 of 2023 for recovery of the decretal amount. It appears that an application for arrest of the petitioner was moved on the ground that the petitioner is not discharging the decretal amount despite having means. The respondent having moved the Execution Petition, under Rule 22 of Order XXI of C.P.C., sought leave to issue notice to the petitioner herein. The Executing Court, by order dated 12.12.2024, had condoned the delay in filing the application and directed issuance of notice under Order XXI Rule 37 C.P.C., against the petitioner on payment of process. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order, dated 12.12.2024, has approached this Court on the ground that the decree could not have been passed in view of the material discrepancies in the promissory note; the Executing Court could not have permitted issue of notices under Order XXI Rule 37 C.P.C; and that a fresh Execution Petition in the form of E.P.No.53 of 2023 could not be filed while E.P.No.181 of 2015 was still pending. 5. As recorded above, E.P.No.181 of 2015 came to be closed and only E.P.No.53 of 2023 is still pending before the Court. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner would have to be rejected. It 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.982 of 2025 is settled law that an executing court will not go behind the decree and enter into the merits of a case. The contentions of the petitioner, relating to the merits of the case cannot be re appreciated by this court. 6. On the question of notice and condonation of delay, a perusal of the order of the Executing Court does not reveal any illegality or irregularity which requires this Court to intervene. The Executing Court, after considering the contention of the respondent, had condoned the delay in filing fresh petition, under Rule 22 of Order XXI C.P.C. 7. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in this civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Js. 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.982 of 2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO C.R.P.No.982 of 2025 18th July, 2025 Js.