APHC010584422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2971/2025 Between: 1. MOKKAPATI CHOUDARAIAH, S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO, 50 YEARS, RTC DRIVER, R/O. DOOR NO.9-3-30, SOMASUNDARAPALEM VILLAGE, TENALI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, TENALI JCJC. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GADDIPATI VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/o. Jangamaiah, 67 years. Retired Employee, R/o. D. No.7-5-23/8, Plot No.203, Maheswari Apartments, Lecturers Colony Ganganammapet, Tenali, Tenali JCJC. ...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 to 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PETA GNANA TEJA 2 The Court made the following Order: The respondent herein had filed a suit bearing O.S.No.46 of 2016 before the XI Additional District Judge Court at Tenali for recovery of certain amounts of money. The suit was filed as a mortgage suit. Initially, a preliminary decree dated 20.07.2016 was passed. Thereafter, the respondent moved E.P. No.167 of 2017 for execution of the preliminary decree. Subsequently, this execution petition was withdrawn. The respondent again moved E.P.No.15 of 2023 for recovery of dues. 2. The petitioner herein resisted the execution petition on the ground that the petitioner had paid out decretal amounts to the respondent and the respondent had withdrawn the earlier execution petition on account of a certain settlement. The petitioner further contended that the respondent having made the petitioner believe that there would be no further proceedings, had again initiated the present execution petition taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner is not properly educated and has no idea of how the Court system works. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Executing Court, by an order, dated 02.09.2025 wherein the Execution Petition was allowed for settlement and the matter was posted to 23.09.2025 for settlement of terms. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present civil revision petition. 4. Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the conduct of the respondent in withdrawing the E.P.No.167 of 3 2017 clearly demonstrates that the decretal amount has been paid out and no debt is recovered from the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner was a driver in A.P.State Road Transport Corporation and he is a person who can read and write but has no knowledge of the manner in which the Court works. He submits that on account of his ignorance, the petitioner, while paying out the decretral amount, did not take the advice of any counsel and was unaware that the proof of such payment should have been filed before the Execution Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that a settlement has been arrived between the parties and the terms have been worked out. 6. This contention which had been raised before the Executing Court had been rejected by the Execution Court on the ground that no proof has been placed before the Executing Court. This Court also does not find any material placed to convince this Court that such payment had been made. 7. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merits to intervene and accordingly this petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 14.11.2025 KA/KSS 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2971 OF 2025 Date: 14.11.2025 KA/KSS 5