APHC010455282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2492/2024 Between: 1. NANDYALA HARINATHA REDDY, S/O. HANUMANTHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O. RADHA NAGAR VILLAGE, PRODDATUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M NARASIMHA REDDY, S/o. Obula Reddy, Hindu, Business, Aged about 76 years, R/o. D.No.4/105/21, Nehru Road, Proddatur Town, Kadapa 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 toaggrieved by the locket Order dated 19.09.2024 passed in E.A.No.611 of 2024 in E.P.No.171 of 2017 in O.S.No.82 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Poddatur under Article 227 of Constitution of India, Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024 1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SUNIL BABU VAJRAM 3 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024 APHC010455312024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2419/2024 Between: 1. NANDYALA HARINATHA REDDY, S/O. HANUMANTHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O. RADHA NAGAR VILLAGE, PRODDATUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M NARASIMHA REDDY, S/o. Obula Reddy Hindu, Business, Aged about 76 years, R/o. D.No.4/105/21, Nehru Road, 'Proddatur Town, Kadapa 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 toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 19.09.2024 passed in E.A.No.610 of 2024 in E.P.No.171 of 2017 in O.S.No.82 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur under Article 227 of Constitution of India IA NO: 1 OF 2024 4 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.171 of 2017 in O.S.No.82 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, pending disposal of CRP and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 granted on 18/10/2024 in CRP.No.2419 of 2024 and to dismiss the CRP in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD 5 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024 COMMON ORDER: These civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the docket order dated 19.09.2024 passed in E.A.Nos.611 and 610 of 2024 in E.P.No.171 of 2017 in O.S.No.82 of 2016 by the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the applications filed to re-open the E.P. and to summon the scribe and attestors of Ex.R.1 to give their evidence on behalf of the petitioner herein about Ex.R.1. 2) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be referred as petitioners and respondent, as arrayed before the Executing Court in E.A.No.611 of 2024 and E.A.No.610 of 2024. 3) The case of the petitioner is that respondent-Decree Holder filed O.S.No.82 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur against the petitioner herein for recovery of Rs.17,20,000/- borrowed under promissory note. Since summons were not served on the petitioner herein as the respondent managed service of summons, the said suit was decreed ex parte on 02.01.2017. Thereafter, the respondent – Decree holder filed E.P.No.171 of 2017 in O.S.No.82 of 2016 for realisation of E.P. amount, in which the petitioner herein – judgment debtor contested the said E.P. contending that even before the decree was passed, on the intervention of elders and in view of close relationship, he has paid Rs.16,27,400/- on 19.05.2016, for which the respondent – decree holder has also issued a receipt, but however, did not handover the pronote. In view of the close relationship, he did not insist for the same. The petitioner herein – judgment debtor was 6 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024 examined as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1 receipt. Since the respondent – decree holder is denying the receipt of the amount, the onus lies on the petitioner herein to prove Ex.R.1 receipt, and to prove Ex.R.1, he intended to examine the scribe and attestors of Ex.R.1 receipt. As the trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner herein – judgment debtor on 11.09.2024 and posted the case to 19.09.2024, on which date he filed E.A.Nos.610 and 611 of 2024 to reopen the E.P.No.171 of 2017 and to summon the scribe and attestors of Ex.R.1, the executing Court dismissed those applications vide docket order dated 19.09.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions have been preferred. 4) When civil revision petition No.2419 of 2024 came up for hearing, on 18.10.2024, this Court passed the following interim order: “The proceedings in E.P.No.171 of 2017 in O.S.No.82 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, shall remain suspended until the next listing.” 5) Respondent – Decree holder filed counter contending that he filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.17,20,000/- with subsequent interest on principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The same was decreed on 02.01.2017. For realisation of the decree amount, he filed E.P.No.171 of 2017 seeking arrest of the petitioner herein as he wilfully defaulted to pay the decree amount. The Execution Petition was filed on 15.06.2017 for realisation of Rs.18,03,625/- after calculating interest on the principal amount as on that date and costs. In the present civil revision petitions, the petitioner – judgment debtor contended that he paid an amount of 7 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024 Rs.16,27,400/- on 19.05.2016 and that the respondent – decree holder issued receipt to that effect and that without disclosing the real facts, the respondent – Decree holder filed suit and obtained ex parte decree. 6) It is further contended in the counter that the petitioner – judgment debtor has not filed any other document except the receipt dated 19.05.2016 along with chief affidavit and the same was marked as Ex.R.1. After his cross-examination, which was done on 11.09.2024 on allowing his application for reopen and receive the chief affidavit, the matter posted to 19.09.2024 for arguments. On 19.09.2024, the petitioner filed E.A.Nos.610 and 611 of 2024 to reopen the E.P.No.171 of 2017 and to summon the scribe and attestors of Ex.R.1. But the Court below rightly dismissed the said applications as the execution petition is of the year 2017 for realisation of the decree amount pursuant to judgment and decree dated 02.01.2017, and requested to dismiss the revision petitions. 7) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that to prove Ex.R.1 receipt issued by the respondent – decree holder, the examination of scribe and attestors is necessary, but the executing Court without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, dismissed the applications filed to reopen the E.P. and to summon the scribe and attestors of Ex.R.1. Therefore, requested this Court to allow the revisions and to summon the scribe and attestors of Ex.R.1 receipt to prove his case. 8) Learned counsel for the respondent – decree holder contended that the suit O.S.No.82 of 2016 filed by the respondent was decreed on 02.01.2017 and the execution petition No.171 of 8 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024 2017 was filed in the year 2017 for realisation of decreetal amount. Even after lapse of almost 08 years, the petitioner is still dragging the matter by filing applications one after another, therefore, executing Court dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner and the executing Court did not commit any error while dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner – judgment debtor, and requested to dismiss the revisions. 9) As seen from the material on record, the evidence of the decree holder was closed in the E.P. on 08.12.2023 and posted for the evidence of petitioner herein – judgment debtor on 19.12.2023, and thereafter to 29.12.2023, as the judgment debtor failed to adduce evidence, the E.P. was posted to 07.02.2024 for hearing and thereafter to 26.02.2024 for orders. Thereafter, the judgment debtor filed reopen petition along with affidavit of R.W.1, and on filing of the same, the matter was posted to 28.03.2024, 16.04.2024, 21.06.2024 and 08.08.2024. However, the executing Court allowed the said petition and the case is posted to 20.08.2024 for cross – examination of R.W.1, thereafter posted to 05.09.2024. On such date also, as R.W.1 was absent, his affidavit in lieu of chief examination was eschewed, and closed the evidence and posted to 11.09.2024 for arguments. Again, on such date, the petitioner herein – judgment debtor filed petition to reopen and receive chief affidavit, however, the executing Court reopened the E.P. only for limited purpose of receipt of affidavit in chief examination of R.W.1 (Petitioner herein) and for cross-examination and marked Ex.R.1 receipt pertaining to the alleged discharge of the suit debt. Again the petitioner herein – judgment debtor filed the applications to re-open the E.P. and to summon the scribe and attestors of Ex.R.1 9 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024 receipt. As the E.P. was reopened on the earlier application filed by the petitioner only for limited purpose of receipt of affidavit in chief examination of R.W.1 and for cross examination, the executing Court dismissed the present applications filed to reopen the E.P. once again and to summon the scribe and attestors of Ex.R.1 receipt. 10) In “S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and others1” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud and that the judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity. 11) In “State of Haryana Vs. Kartar Singh (Dead) Through L.Rs2”, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that plea of nullity of a decree can always be set up before the executing Court, and that any judgment and order which is a nullity never acquires finality and is thus open to challenge in the executing proceedings. 12) The law laid down in the said judgments is not in dispute, but the same has no application to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner – judgment debtor has not taken any such plea that the decree holder has obtained decree by playing fraud before the trial Court. But, for the first time, before this Court, he has taken such plea that the decree holder played fraud and obtained decree. 1 (1994) 1 SCC 1 2 (2013) 11 SCC 375 10 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024 13) In “Pradeep Mehra Vs. Harijivan J.Jethwa (since deceased through L.Rs.)3”, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent – decree holder, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that all questions relating to execution of decree can be decided by executing Court, but the Executing Court can never go behind decree and cannot examine validity of order/decree unless the Court’s order is itself without jurisdiction. 14) During hearing, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner herein – judgment debtor filed Appeal Suit No.350 of 2025 before this Court against the decree and judgment dated 02.01.2017 passed in O.S.No.82 of 2016 by the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. If at all, the petitioner herein – judgment debtor wants to take a plea that the decree holder has obtained decree by playing fraud, he can raise such plea in A.S.No.350 of 2025 filed by him before this Court. 15) As stated supra, the decree was passed in the year 2017 and execution petition was also filed in the year 2017 itself for realisation of decree amount, even after lapse of almost 8 years, the petitioner is still dragging the matter by filing petitions one after another. The present petitions are filed to reopen the EP and to summon the scribe and attestor of Ex.R.1 receipt pertaining to the alleged discharge of the suit debt. If really, the judgment debtor is in possession of Ex.R.1 receipt, he would have filed the same during the trial of the original suit. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner herein in filing petitions one after another, and following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Pradeep Mehra Vs. Harijivan J.Jethwa (since deceased through L.Rs.)”, 3 2023 (6) ALD 134 (SC) 11 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024 (referred supra) this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court did commit no error in passing the docket order dated 19.09.2024 passed in E.A.Nos.610 and 611 of 2024 in E.P.No.171 of 2017 in O.S.No.82 of 2016 and these revisions are devoid of merit, consequently, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 16) In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 17) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 09.10.2025 Ksp 12 VS,J CRPs_2492 and 2419_2024