1 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 of 2025 APHC010025562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 254/2025 Between: 1. M MUNIRAJULU, S/O M. KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS RESIDING AT D.NO. 2-365, NEAR RAITHU BAZAAR K.R.PALLI, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SUMATHI, D/O LATE NANDA GOPAL NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO. 9-299, GURRAPPA NAIDU STREET CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. G HARIPRASAD, S/O LATE G. SEKHAR NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO. 9-299, GURRAPPA NAIDU STREET, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. M SAVITRI, W/O M. MUNIRAJULU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO. 2-365, NEAR RAITHU BAZAAR K.R.PALLI, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. K GEETHA, W/O SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO. 2-349, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, SATHYANARAYANAPURAM CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS NO. 3 AND 4 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 of 2025 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 toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order dt. 26.09.2024 made in E.P.No. 37 of 2021 in L.A.A.No. 2861 of 2016 in P.L.P.No. 2559 of 2016 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor Distric 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 please to stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No. 37 of 2021 in L.A.A.No. 2861 of 2016 in P.L.P.No. 2559 of 2016 on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District pending disposal of the main C.R.P. 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 vacate the interim stay passed in CRP No. 254/2025 dated 7.2.2025 in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T C KRISHNAN 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/judgment debtor No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned IX Additional District judge, Chittoor in E.P.No.37 of 2021, whereby, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/decree holders 1 and 2 under Order XXI Rule 37 and under Section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter be referred to as „CPC‟), requesting the Court below issue arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor No.1 under Order XXI Rule 38 of CPC and to detain him in civil prison. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below in the execution petition. The judgment debtors initially purchased the subject property from the decree holders under four sale deeds bearing Doc No.917 of 2013, dated 12.04.2013, Doc No.918 of 2013, dated 12.04.2013, Doc No.919 of 2013, dated 12.04.2013 and Doc No.2028 of 2015, dated 06.04.2015. As the judgment debtors were in dire need of money, they intended to reconvey the sale deeds in favour of the decree holders. Hence, the judgment debtors filed a pre litigation petition (PLP.No.2559 of 2016), which was compromised by both the parties at the intervention of the Lok Adalat and the same was 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 of 2025 disposed of with certain terms and conditions in L.A.A.No.2861 of 2016, dated 25.07.2016. The following are the terms and conditions agreed upon both the parties: “1. The petitioners agreed to receive a sum of Rs.74,00,000/-(Rupees seventy four lakhs only) towards full and final settlement Instead of Rs.136 lakhs as mentioned in the petition and the respondents also agreed for the same. 2. Out of which, the respondents agreed to pay Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees thirty lakhs only) today and the remaining balance amount of Rs. 44,00,000/- (Rupees forty four lakhs only) will be paid within a period of 4 months commencing from today i..e, 25-7-2016. 3. The petitioners have to execute the cancellation deeds relating to the sale deeds i.e., 1) registered sale deed bearing document No.919/2013 dt:12-4-2013 which was obtained in the name of K.Geetha, W/o G.Sreenivasulu from G.Sumathi for the land in S.No.387 and he has to deliver possession of the said property today itself 2) registered sale deed bearing document No.2028/2015 dt:16-4-2015 which was obtained in the name of S.Savithri W/o M.Munirajulu from G.Hari Prasad for the land in S.NO.358-1, 511 No.74 Thimma Samudram revenue village accounts and he has to deliver possession of the said property on or before 10-8-2016. If the petitioner fails to do so, the respondents can postpone the payment of balance amount and from the date onwards the four months time will start. 4. The 1st petitioner has to execute the cancellation deeds relating to the sale deeds 1. Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.918/2013 dt:12- 4-2013 which was obtained in the name of M.Munirajulu, S/o M.Krishnama Naidu from G.Sumathi for the land in S.no.387 and he has to deliver possession and cancel the sale deeds of the above said properties on the date of payment of balance amount on or before 25-11-2016. 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 of 2025 5. If the petitioner fails to deliver the possession of the properties to the respondents are entitled to recover the entire amount paid by the respondents by filing the execution petition before the civil court. 6. If the respondents fail to make the payment of Rs.44,00,000/- (Rupees forty four lakhs only) the petitioner can file execution petition before the civil court for recovery of amount.” (b) Accordingly, the judgment debtors received the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as on the date of award itself. Thereafter, though the decree holders have come forward to pay the balance amount to the judgment debtors for cancellation of registered sale deeds, the same is being postponed by the judgment debtors on one pretext or the other. Aggrieved by the said action, the decree holders, filed E.P.No.37 of 2021 before the Court below under Order XXI Rule 37 and 55 of CPC for recovery of Rs.30,00,000/- paid to the judgment debtors on 25.07.2016. (c) The Court below, vide the impugned order dated 26.09.2024, having observed that the judgment debtor No.1 has the capacity to return the amount payable to the decree holders and is evading to return the same as per the award dated 25.07.2016, allowed the petition filed by the decree holders and issued arrest warrant against the judgment debtor No.1 under Rule 38. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor No.1 filed this revision petition. 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 of 2025 3. Heard Sri. O. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor No.1 and Sri. T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/decree holders. 4. Perused the entire material available on record. It can be observed that initially, the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 purchased a property from respondent Nos.1 and 2 under four sale deeds bearing Doc No.917 of 2013, dated 12.04.2013, Doc No.918 of 2013, dated 12.04.2013, Doc No.919 of 2013, dated 12.04.2013 and Doc No.2028 of 2015, dated 06.04.2015. As they were in dire need of money, they intended to reconvey the sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. As such, they filed PLP No.2559 of 2016 before the District Legal Services Authority, Chittoor which was disposed by the intervention of the Lok Adalat and accordingly, an award was passed on 25.07.2016 wherein, the parties have entered into a compromise and agreed for disposal of the case with certain terms and conditions, as extracted supra. As per the condition No.2, the petitioner received an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 25.07.2016. However, though the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have approached the petitioner for cancellation of the sale deeds as per the terms and conditions of the award dated 25.07.2016, the petitioner is said to have been evading the same on one reason or the other. As such, in order to recover Rs.30,00,000/- from the petitioner, the 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 of 2025 respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an execution petition before the Court below under Order XXI Rule 37 of CPC. 5. Before the Court below, the respondent No.2 filed his chief affidavit in support of his case and got marked Exs.A7 and A8, which are the documents pertaining to the immovable properties in favour of the petitioner. The Court below, having observed that though the petitioner is having the capacity to return the amount and is evading to comply the conditions stated in the award and that the petitioner has failed to elicit anything with regard to Exs.A7 and A8, allowed the petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and has issued arrest warrant to the petitioner herein. 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 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 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.” 6. 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 9 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 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.” 7. It can be observed from the aforesaid judgment and the provisions of law extracted hereinabove that the Court has power under Section 51 of CPC to order the execution of a decree for the payment of money due under the decree 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 10 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 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. 8. In the case on hand, the respondents were 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 respondents 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. 11 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 of 2025 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 the impugned order itself would show that the petitioner is having properties of various extents and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were able to prove his title over the same. In such circumstances, the same could have been attached for the realization of the amount payable, 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 respondents 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, 12 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 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 disposed of and the order passed by the dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned IX Additional District judge, Chittoor in E.P.No.37 of 2021 is hereby set-aside. However, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to file appropriate application before the Court below, for recovery of decretal amount, in view of the observations 2 2003 (6) SCC 641 13 VS,J C.R.P.No.254 of 2025 made 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:19.12.2025. Gss