1 APHC010289782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1388 OF 2025 Between: 1.K MANMATHUDU, S/O. K.KRISTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.KURLAPALLI, H/O. LEPAKSHI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.M K VISWANATH, S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.KURLAPALLI, H/O. LEPAKSHI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that: The Plaintiff/Decree Holder (D.Hr) had filed O.S.No.50 of 2015 for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,05,840/- against the Defendant/Judgment Debtor (J.Dr) on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hindupur and the same was decreed on 30.06.2022; that after passing of the decree, the D.Hr had made a demand to the J.Dr to pay the decretal amount as per the decree; that since the J.Dr went on postponing to repay the decretal amount and disobeyed the judgment and decree, the D.Hr had filed E.P.No.11 of 2022 for recovery of the decretal amount under Order 21 Rule 37 and 38 of the C.P.C on the ground that though the J.Dr is having landed and house properties worth Rs.25,00,000/- and also getting income of Rs.25,000/- per month, he did not choose to discharge the decretal amount. 3. The facts would also indicate that the J.Dr had filed Counter- Affidavit by denying the averments in the Execution Petition and further submitted in the Counter-Affidavit that the J.Dr is not having any movable or immovable properties of his own to discharge the decretal amount; that the D.Hr is aware that the J.Dr is not having any means to discharge the E.P amount and that there are property disputes between the D.Hr and the J.Dr etc., 4. Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hindupur had considered the contentions of the D.Hr as well as the J.Dr and was pleased to allow the Execution Petition by rejecting the contention of the J.Dr that the said J.Dr had failed to prove that his properties are embroyed in any Court litigation vide Order dated 06.02.2025. This Order dated 06.02.2025 is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition. 5. Having considered the above facts, this Court has noticed the fact that the Defendant/J.Dr has not placed any material on record to establish that his property is involved in any litigation that makes him incapacitated to honour the decree which was passed against him. If the J.Dr fails to 3 voluntarily discharge the debt, the executing Court is required to ensure that the decree is executed in accordance with the provisions of the C.P.C. 6. In this view of the matter, the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 27.06.2025 SDP/MNR 4 141 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1388 of 2025 Dt: 27.06.2025 SDP/MNR