APHC010691382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3752/2025 Between: 1. CHIGURUPATI RAVENDRA BABU, S/O. REDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RIO. CHENNUR VILLAGE, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KANAPARTHI NAGARANI, W/O. LATE KANPARTHI VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. CHENNUR VILLAGE, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. KANPARTHI ADITHYA, S/O. KANAPARTHI VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O. CHENNUR VILLAGE, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. KANAPARTHI AKHIL, S/O. KANAPARTHI VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. CHENNUR VILLAGE, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. KANAPARTHI SAROJINI, W/O. LATE KANAPARTHI BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7-69, YELLAMARU POST, PEDAPARUPUDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tobegs to present the above Revision Petition in this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Order dt 09-12-2025 in E.A.No.1067 of 2025 in E.A.No.4 of 2023 in E.P.No.19 of 2017 in MVOP.No.76 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, for the following among other -2- C.R.P. No.3752 OF 2025 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 to suspend the operation of the Order dt: 09-12-2025 in E.A.No.1067 of 2025 in E.A.No.4 of 2023 in E.P.No.19 of 2017 in MVOP.No.76 of 2010 on the file of the court of Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, pending disposal of the above Revision in this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GURU VARA PRASAD TALARI The Court made the following: -3- C.R.P. No.3752 OF 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3752 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Aggrieved by the order dt.09.12.2025 passed by the executing court, the learned Principal District Judge Court at Machilipatnam, whereby the Court granted police aid to execute warrant against the J.Dr. for realization of the decreetal amount, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. The petitioner is the J.Dr. in E.P. No.19/2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam. A decree was passed in M.V.O.P. No.76 of 2010 against the J.Dr. As the J.Dr. failed to pay the award amount, the D.Hr. has filed execution petition for arrest of the J.Dr. which was allowed. Thereafter the present petition was filed seeking police aid to execute the warrant against the J.Dr. 4. The said order is now questioned on the ground that police aid is not given to the Court Ameen who has to execute the warrant and the police aid is given to the D.Hr., for executing the warrant. In fact, even though in para 5 of the order it is stated that police are directed to extend aid to the D.Hr., for execution of the warrant, it is very clearly stated at the end of para 4 that it is appropriate to grant police aid to the Court Ameen to execute the warrant. Therefore, it is obvious that the intention of the Court is to grant police aid to the Court Ameen to -4- C.R.P. No.3752 OF 2025 execute warrant. The order is to be read as a whole and not in isolation. If a holistic view is taken, the intention of the executing court is clear that the police aid was given to the Court Ameen to execute the warrant. Therefore, the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the J.Dr., to assail the impugned order is devoid of merit. Barring the said contention, there is no other ground raised challenging the impugned order. Therefore, this Court finds no valid ground to entertain the civil revision petition to interfere with the impugned order. 5. When the award was passed and when it became final, it is for the J.Dr., to satisfy the award and pay the award amount. Even when the execution petition was filed, he did not satisfy the award. Therefore, the executing court was constrained to issue warrant of arrest. There is nothing wrong in the order of the executing court. So the civil revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs. 6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. _______________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Dt.26.12.2025 BV