1 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 APHC010046612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 225/2025 Between: 1. A VIJAY SANKAR REDDY, S/O SIDDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O DURGASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M PRASAD, S/o M.Parusuram Reddy, aged about 42 years, R/o Adapareddypalli Village Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set-aside the order dated 30.12.2024 passed in E.P.No.100 of 2023 in O.S.No.268 of 2016 by the Court of the X Addl. District Civil Judge, Tirupatiand pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the orders dated 30.12.2024 passed in E.P.No.100 of 2023 in O.S.No.268 of 2016 by the 2 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 Court of the X Addl. District Civil Judge, Tirupati, pending disposal of the CRP and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to extend the interim orders passed in C.R.P.No.225 of 2025 on 7.2.2025, pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J UGRANARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G VENU MADHAV CHOWDARY The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/judgment debtor challenging the order passed by the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dated 30.12.2024 in E.P.No.100 of 2023 in O.S.No.268 of 2016, whereby, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent/decree holder under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short „CPC‟) to issue notice and to pass an order of arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor and to send him to Civil Prison for realization of the execution petition amount. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) The respondent filed O.S.No.268 of 2016 before the Court below for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- paid to the petitioner towards advance sale consideration, wherein, the Court below passed a judgment and decree on 13.06.2023 in favour of the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that though the petitioner owns numerous properties in and around Tirupati and in spite of having sufficient moveable and immovable properties, he is not paying the decretal amount. As such, the respondent filed E.P.No.100 of 2023 under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of CPC requesting the Court below to order arrest of the petitioner and to send him to civil prison for realization of the decretal amount. 4 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 (b) The Court below, having observed that the petitioner has got sufficient means to pay the decretal amount but is deliberately avoiding to pay the same, allowed the application filed by the respondent and issued arrest warrant against the petitioner, vide order dated 30.12.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this civil revision petition. 3. When the civil revision petition came up for admission on 07.02.2025, this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.100 of 2023 in O.S.No.268 of 2016 on the file of X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, pursuant to the orders of the Court below dated 30.12.2024, initially for a period of three weeks, which was extended thereafter, from time to time. 4. Heard Sri. J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gotti Venu Madhav Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Admittedly, due to non-payment of the decretal amount by the petitioner as ordered by the Court below vide judgment and decree dated 13.06.2023, the respondent has filed an application before the Court below, contending that the petitioner devolved several properties through a registered partition deed dated 30.03.2013, under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of CPC and requested the Court below to issue notice and to pass an order of arrest of the petitioner and to send him to civil prison for realization of the decretal amount. In support of his case, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and another person as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 (scanned copy of registered 5 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 partition deed dated 30.03.2013) and A2 (1-B Namuna in favour of the petitioner dated 02.09.2023). The petitioner herein examined himself as R.W.1 and one A. Nagi Reddy as R.W.2. 6. The Court below, after examining the evidence adduced by both the parties, came to a conclusion that the petitioner is having various properties and is having enough means to pay the decretal amount to the respondent. Thus, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of CPC vide impugned order dated 30.12.2024 and directed the concerned to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner. For better appreciation, Rules 37 and 38 of Order XXI of CPC are extracted hereunder: “37. Discretionary power to permit judgment-debtor to show cause against detention in prison.— (1)Notwithstanding anything in these rules, where an application is for the execution of a decree for the payment of money by the arrest and detention in the civil prison of a judgment-debtor who is liable to be arrested in pursuance of the application, the Court shall, instead of issuing a warrant for his arrest, issue a notice calling upon him to appear before the Court on a day to be specified in the notice and show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison: [Provided that such notice shall not be necessary if the Court is satisfied, by affidavit, or otherwise, that, with the object or effect of delaying the execution of the decree, the judgment-debtor is 6 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.] (2) Where appearance is not made in obedience to the notice, the Court shall, if the decree-holder so requires, issue a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. 38. Warrant for arrest to direct judgment-debtor to be brought up.—Every warrant for the arrest of a judgment-debtor shall direct the officer entrusted with its execution to bring him before the Court with all convenient speed, unless the amount which he has been ordered to pay, together with the interest thereon and the costs (if any) to which he is liable, be sooner paid.” 7. In a judgment rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Kalidindi Rama Raju v. Vijaya Bank (Nationalised)1, while dealing with Rules 37 and 38 of Order XXI of CPC, it was held that recovery by arrest and detention in execution of decree is one of the modes provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure. Arrest and detention are matters involving personal liberty of citizens and hence arbitrary arrests have been repeatedly deprecated. It further held that the Courts, most probably due to pressure of work in several arrest execution petitions are passing casual orders not supported by any reasons and in a routine way without application of mind or without properly examining the matter. This trend appears to be on increase in the recent times. Having considered all the legal aspects, the Court framed 1 2001 SCC OnLine AP 562 7 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 certain principles to be borne in mind while ordering arrest and detention of judgment debtors which are extracted hereunder: “1. Passing cryptic orders not based on reasons have to be avoided. 2. Courts are expected to be cautious while making order of arrest in execution of decree since it involves personal liberty. 3. Proper opportunity has to be given and necessary enquiry has to be made while making an order of arrest. 4. Courts may also examine whether other modes of recovery are available to the decree holder and is it necessary to order arrest for recovery of the amount and whether judgment debtors are wilfully and intentionally neglecting to discharge the decree debts and courts may examine the relevant circumstances also in this regard. 5. Even while making an order of arrest in default of appearance of the judgment debtors courts have to prima facie satisfy themselves on the material placed before them that an order of arrest can be made. 6. Courts shall also fix the period for which the judgment debtors are to be kept in detention.” 8. It can be observed from the aforesaid judgment and the provisions of law extracted hereinabove that the Court has power conferred upon it under Section 51 of CPC to order the execution of a decree for the payment of money by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in prison on the application of a decree-holder. However, the condition precedent for the exercise of that power is that the Court shall afford an opportunity to the judgment-debtor to show cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison. Further, the Court should be satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in 8 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 writing that the judgment-debtor has, since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and that the judgment-debtor has refused or neglected to pay the same. In such a case, the Court shall, instead of issuing a warrant for the arrest of the judgment- debtor, shall have to issue notice calling upon the judgment-debtor to appear before the Court and show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison. Where no such appearance is made in obedience to the notice and if the decree-holder so requires, it is rendered obligatory on the part of the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. 9. In the case on hand, the respondent was able to prove that the petitioner, despite having various properties and sufficient means to pay the decretal amount has refused/neglected to comply with the same. In such a case, the respondent ought to have filed an application under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC to attach the said properties and to realize the decretal amount. Undisputedly, as per the principles laid down by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kalidindi Rama Raju v. Vijaya Bank (Nationalised) (1st supra), particularly as per the 4th principle, when there is an alternative source available for the decree holder to recover monies, the claim for the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor is not reasonable and fair. 10. It is a well known fact that arrest and detention of a citizen are matters involving the personal liberty of such citizen. In the case on hand, a perusal of 9 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 the impugned order itself would show that the petitioner is having properties of various extents which were devolved upon him by way of a partition deed dated 13.06.2023. In such circumstances, the same could have been attached for the realization of the decretal amount, instead of resorting to an extreme step of ordering arrest of the judgment-debtor. Even the Court below ought to have observed as to whether other modes of recovery are available to the respondent and whether it is necessary to order arrest of the petitioner for recovery of the decretal amount. 11. Article 227 deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Court and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial revision also even where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law, rather power under this Article is wider than that of Article 226 in the sense that it is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction and such power can also be exercised suo motu. 12. It is a well settled principle that the High Court can exercise supervisory power over the subordinate Courts under Article 227 of Constitution of India, 10 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 as held by the Apex Court in “State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru2. 13. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 14. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the order of the trial Court is erroneous as it has failed to exercise discretion properly and such finding is liable to be set aside by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati dated 30.12.2024 in E.P.No.100 of 2023 in O.S.No.268 of 2016 is hereby set-aside. However, the respondent is at liberty to file appropriate application before the Court below, for recovery of decretal amount, in view of the observations made 2 2003 (6) SCC 641 11 VS,J CRP.No.225 of 2025 hereinabove and on such filing, the Court below shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:22.11.2025 Gss