APHC010036002023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.850 OF 2023 Between: M.B. Raja Sekhar --- Petitioner and J. Sudhakar Chowdary --- Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.R. Sudhakar Counsel for the respondent : Sri Sajid Kallur The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking to set-aside the order, dated 26.07.2022, passed in E.P. No.129 of 2015 in O.S. No.214 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, Anantapuram District whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner/decree holder, under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of C.P.C., by holding that the respondent/judgment debtor be sent to civil prison for three (3) months for realization of Execution Petition amount. JS,J CRP No.850/2023 2 2. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner/judgment debtor is an agricultural coolie working for daily wages based on the availability of work and whether the property shown by the respondent/decree holder belongs to the wife of the petitioner? 3. From a perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear that the respondent/decree was able to prove that the petitioner herein is not a coolie and the learned trial Court Judge held as follows: The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.214 of 2014 before the trial Court to recover the amount under the suit promissory note and a decree was passed for Rs.1,92,960/- on 20.07.2015. Subsequently, E.P. No.129 of 2015 was allowed on 26.07.2022 directing that the petitioner/judgment debtor be sent to civil prison for three (3) months. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor contends that the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder has not adhered to Section 51 of C.P.C. before filing of the Execution Petition. Further, the petitioner is an agricultural coolie earning Rs.300/- per day. The alleged agricultural property shown by the respondent/plaintiff belongs to the wife JS,J CRP No.850/2023 3 of the petitioner and as such the trial Court miserably failed to appreciate this fact thereby allowed the Execution Petition. 6. Section 51 of the C.P.C, which is relevant at this stage, is extracted hereunder for better appreciation: “51. Powers of Court to enforce execution – Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, on the application of the decree holder, order execution of the decree – (a) by delivery of any property specifically decreed; (b) by attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of any property; (c) by arrest and detention in prison [for such period not exceeding the period specified in section 58, where arrest and detention is permissible under that section]; (d) by appointing a receiver; or (e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require: [Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied- (a) that the judgment-debtor, with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree, - (i) is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or (ii) has, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed, or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property, or JS,J CRP No.850/2023 4 (b) that the judgment-debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to say the same, or (c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vigorously argued that the executing Court has failed to comply with Section 51 of the C.P.C. and that there has been no demand from the decree-holder upon the judgment debtor. He further relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jolly George Varghese and another v. The Bank of Cochin1 to support his argument. Section 51 R/w. Order XXI, Rule 37 of the C.P.C. states that detaining, arresting and imprisoning a judgment debtor after the decree date, when the judgment debtor has no means to pay and in the absence of mala fides and dishonesty, constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor possessed an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.734/D and Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.803 of Chinna Pothuru village in his name at the time of filing of the Suit and subsequently, after filing of the Suit, the property was transferred to his wife and the petitioner 1 AIR (1980) SC 470 JS,J CRP No.850/2023 5 has failed to establish that his wife has purchased the properties from her own earnings. 9. Section 51 of C.P.C. stipulates that if a judgment debtor lacks the means to pay, he cannot be arrested or detained. However, if he has the means to pay but refuses or neglects to fulfill his obligation, or if he acts in bad faith, becomes liable to imprisonment under Section 51 of the C.P.C., which does not contradict the mandate of the Article. 10. In view of my foregoing discussion, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 02.04.2025 SPP/DSH