APHC010442962009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1483/2009 Between: Rayaprolu Venkata Suramma ( Died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Nulu Veerabhadra Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. I RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V S R ANJANEYALU 2 The Court made the following order: The present revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 07.03.2007 passed in EP No.432 of 2005 in OS No.786 of 1995 on the file the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 2. The petitioners in the present revision are the decree holders who filed Execution Petition vide EP No.432 of 2005 under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC, seeking to issue arrest warrant against the respondent/judgment debtor and to send him to civil prison for realisation of decretal amount. Upon considering the said application, the Execution Court dismissed the Execution Petition which is being impugned in the present revision. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioners contended that the decree holder, though having means to pay the amount under the decree, did not choose to pay the same. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioners that, the respondent is having a residential house bearing Door No.8-99 at Indra Palem of Kakinda and it is worth 3 more than thirty (30) lakhs. The petitioners further contended that, apart from the same, the judgment debtor, received an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- upon attaining superannuation in the year 2003. Despite the same, the respondent did not choose to pay the decretal amount, therefore, the petitioners filed the Execution Petition. 6. Per contra, the respondent filed counter stating that, he has already filed an appeal against the decree of the trail Court and along with the said appeal he also preferred interlocutory application vide IA No.106 of 2006 and the same is pending, therefore, the Execution Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Though the counsel for the petitioners contended that the judgment debtor is having a residential building and has also received an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards retiremental benefits, they did not place any material before the Execution Court to substantiate their contention. In fact, during the cross examination, PW1 (petitioner) has categorically stated that, there is no proof to show that the judgment debtor/respondent has received retirement benefits of Rs.8,00,000/- and no documentary evidence is placed on record to that effect. Apart from the same, 4 it is contended by the judgment debtor that, he is residing in house bearing D.No.9-54, which was purchased during the year 1991 and the same is standing in the name of his wife. 8. Having considered the order and documentary evidence, the Execution Court has rightly dismissed the Execution Petition filed by the petitioners. As the petitioners did not file any proof to show that, the judgment debtor is the owner of the house bearing D.No.8-99 at Indrapalem, Kakinada and in addition, the petitioners also failed to prove that, the judgment debtor has received benefits upon his retirement. In the absence of the same, the execution petition cannot be reiterated and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 9. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.27.01.2025 DSB 5 131 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.1483 of 2009 Date 27.01.2025 DSB