APHC010334632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Civil Revision Petition Between: M. Rathangapani Reddy and Nagu Bai Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Mulla Sohail Shareef Counsel for the respondent: 1. G.Sravan Kumar The Court made the following IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) , the seventeenth day of September, two thousand and twenty five Present he Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1599 of 2025 Rathangapani Reddy ...Petitioner ...Respondent etitioner: Mulla Sohail Shareef espondent: The Court made the following: [3311] Petitioner Respondent 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1599 of 2025 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under section 115 of C.P.C. against the order, dated 16.05.2025, allowing E.P.No.35 of 2020 in O.S.No.911 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kurnool, filed by the decree holder (D.Hr.) under Oder XXI, Rules 37 and 38 of C.P.C. seeking arrest of the judgment debtor (J.Dr.) and send him to civil prison for realization of the decretal amount of Rs.2,05,395/-. 2. The D.Hr. pleaded that the J.Dr. is doing business and has sufficient means to discharge the decreetal debt, yet, he failed to discharge the decree. The execution was resisted by the J.Dr. claiming that he has no means to pay the decretal debt as he sustained loss in the business and wound up the business. 3. The D.Hr. got herself examined as P.W.1 and also examined Sri M.Gowtham as P.W.2. According to the learned counsel for the respondent / D.Hr., documents vide Exs.A1 to A4 were also marked through P.W.2, but, this fact was not inadvertently mentioned in the order of the execution Court. Exhibit A1 is cash bill No.147, dated 28.12.2022 issued by the J.Dr., exhibit A2 is the Weighing scales operating instructions Manual-cum-Warranty card issued in favour of Gautam; exhibit A3 is visiting cards of judgment debtor’s both firms; and exhibit A4 is the photographs of the judgment debtor’s show room. As per the contents of the order of the execution Court, the J.Dr. was examined as R.W.1. But, the learned counsel for the respondent / D.Hr. submitted that the affidavit in chief examination of J.Dr. filed was eschewed as he had not turned up. 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1599 of 2025 4. After hearing both the parties, the execution Court allowed the petition and directed to issue of arrest warrant against the J.Dr. holding that the D.Hr. established that the J.Dr. has got sufficient means to pay decretal amount through the evidence of P.Ws. No.1 and 2 and that the J.Dr. is deliberately avoiding to pay the decretal amount. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed by the J.Dr. contending that the execution Court erroneously allowed the application filed by the respondent and issued arrest warrant though the D.Hr. failed to prove the means of J.Dr. to discharge the debt. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner / J.Dr. submitted that the evidence placed by the D.Hr. is insufficient to establish that the J.Dr has means sufficient to discharge the decretal amount and that he had deliberately avoided the payment. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent / D.Hr. submitted that the D.Hr. proved the means of J.Dr. through independent witness who was examined as P.W.2 and filed Exs.A1 to A4 which were not duly denied by the J.Dr. by entering into witness box as he turned up after filing his affidavit in chief examination, which was later eschewed as there was no appearance. He further submitted that proceedings eschewing the affidavit of R.W.1 was submitted along with material papers. 8. As can be seen from the evidence, both oral and documentary, insofar as the means of the J.Dr. is concerned, there is consistent evidence that the J.Dr. has been doing electrical wending machine business which has not been contradicted by the J.Dr. by entering into the witness box. When the D.Hr. placed the evidence sufficient to establish that the J.Dr. has been doing business, it is for him to show that he has no such means or means which is sufficient to discharge the 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1599 of 2025 decretal debt. The J.Dr. failed to discharge the onus shifted to him. Therefore, as the D.Hr. established with sufficient evidence that the J.Dr., having means sufficient to discharge the decretal debt, failed to do so, there is no error in the order impugned in the revision petition. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 17.09.2025 GRL / RAR