APHC010092022024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 390/2024 Between: 1. MUCHU KUMARI,, W/O.SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HINDU, OCC MILK BUSINESS, R/O.KOVUR ROAD, KANDUKUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. KANDUKURI SRINIVASULU, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 52 years, Hindu, Occ Conductor in APSRTC, Kanigiri Depot, R/o.3rd Lane, Balaramaiah Thota, Kandukur Town and Mandal, Prakasam 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 to aggrieved by the order and decree dated 08-12-2023 passed in E.P.No.25 of 2022 in O.S.No.156 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Prakasam District, as illegal, without jurisdiction Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SUBBA RAO JANDHYAM The Court made the following: SRK, J CRP No.390 of 2024 2 O R D E R The present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed, challenging the Order dated 08.12.2023 passed in E.P.No.25 of 2022 in O.S.No.156 of 2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur (for brevity ‘the Executing Court’), whereby and whereunder, the Execution Petition filed under Order XXI Rule 22, 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’), was dismissed. 2. Petitioner herein is the Decree-holder (D.Hr) and plaintiff, whereas, respondent herein is the Judgment-Debtor (J.Dr) and defendant, in E.P.No.25 of 2022 and O.S.No.156 of 2015, respectively, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur. The parties are referred to, as they were arrayed in the Execution Petition proceedings. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the D.Hr/plaintiff filed O.S.No.156 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, against the J.Dr/defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,90,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum and costs; that after full-fledged trial, the trial Court vide Judgment dated 18.08.2017, decreed the said suit in favour of D.Hr/plaintiff and against the J.Dr/defendant. Subsequently, the SRK, J CRP No.390 of 2024 3 D.Hr/plaintiff filed E.P.No.25 of 2022 against the J.Dr/defendant on the file of the Executing Court under Order XXI Rules 22, 37 and 38 of CPC to send the J.Dr/defendant to civil prison, as he intentionally evaded to discharge the debt due under the EP, in spite of having sufficient means. 4. The Executing Court vide Order dated 08.12.2023 dismissed the E.P.No.25 of 2022 holding as under: ii. As per proviso of Section 60 (i) of CPC provided that where any part of such portion of the salary as is liable to attachment has been under attachment, whether continuously or intermittently, for a total period of twenty-four months, such portion shall be exempt from attachment until the expiry of a further period of twelve months, and, where such attachment has been made in execution of one and the same decree, shall, after the attachment has continued for a total period of twenty-four months, be finally exempt from attachment in execution of that decree. Therefore, as already the salary was attached for 24 months, it is finally exempted from the attachment. The judgment-debtor did not file any record to show that his salary is attached in E.P.No.17 of 2021. However, the decree-holder did not produce any record to show that apart from the salary, the judgment-debtor has got any other means. As per explanation to Section 51 of CPC in the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of Cl.(b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree. Therefore, for calculating the means, the properties, which are exempted SRK, J CRP No.390 of 2024 4 from attachment, cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, the salary of the judgment-debtor cannot be taken into consideration to prove the means of the judgment-debtor. As already stated supra, the decree-holder did not produce any other material to prove that apart from salary, the judgment-debtor has got means to discharge the above balance of decretal amount. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the decree-holder utterly failed to prove the means of the judgment-debtor.” Aggrieved of the said impugned Order, dated 08.12.2023, the D.Hr/plaintiff filed the present Revision Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/D.Hr would contend that previously, she filed E.P.No.61 of 2017 and recovered an amount of Rs.97,428/- by way of attachment of salary of J.Dr, for 24 months, and thereafter, in spite of repeated demands, though the J.Dr is having house worth of Rs.50.00 lakhs, and getting income at Rs.15,000/- per month, failed to repay the balance EP debt. Learned counsel further contends that the Executing Court instead of appreciating the fact that the J.Dr is though having means wantonly avoiding to pay the balance EP debt, dismissed the E.P.No.25 of 2022 on the ground that the D.Hr failed to produce any documentary proof to show that apart from salary, the J.Dr has got any other means to discharge the balance EP debt. SRK, J CRP No.390 of 2024 5 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/J.Dr would contend that the petitioner/D.Hr recovered an amount of Rs.97,428/- by attaching the salary of the respondent/J.Dr for 24 months, and having known to the fact that the salary of the respondent/J.Dr was attached in E.P.No.17 of 2021, intentionally filed the E.P.No.25 of 2022 under Order XXI Rule 22, 37 and 38 of CPC to send him to civil prison only to harass the respondent/J.Dr. Learned counsel further contends that when the respondent/J.Dr is having sufficient means in the form of immovable property, the petitioner/D.Hr can as well file the EP seeking attachment of the immovable property, but not filing the present EP under Order XXI Rule 37 and 38 of CPC. The Executing Court rightly dismissed the EP. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition. 7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material available on record. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the Order dated 08.12.2023 passed in E.P.No.25 of 2022 in O.S.No.156 of 2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, warrants interference of this Court? 9. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 18.08.2017 passed in SRK, J CRP No.390 of 2024 6 O.S.No.156 of 2015, petitioner/D.Hr is entitled to recover the decretal amount from the respondent/J.Dr. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/D.Hr earlier filed E.P.No.61 of 2017, and by way of attachment of salary of the respondent/J.Dr for a period of 24 months, she got recovered an amount of Rs.97,428/-. The present E.P.No.No.25 of 2022 was filed under Order XXI Rules 22, 37 and 38 of CPC, seeking detention of the respondent/J.Dr in civil prison on the ground that, despite having sufficient means, he is wantonly and intentionally neglecting to discharge the balance EP debt. 10. It is well settled that mere existence of a decree for recovery of amount does not, by itself, validate detention of the J.Dr in civil prison. The provisions of Section 51 read with Order XXI Rule 37 of CPC require the Executing Court to be satisfied, inter alia that the J.Dr has or has had, since the date of the decree, the means to pay the decretal amount or a substantial part thereof and that he has refused or neglected to pay the same. The requirement of establishing the relevant conditions for ordering detention in civil prison cannot be dispensed with, merely because, the decree remains unsatisfied. 11. In the present case, the specific contention of the petitioner/D.Hr is that the respondent/J.Dr possesses a house SRK, J CRP No.390 of 2024 7 worth of Rs.50.00 lakhs, and he is deriving an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month in the form of rent. However, except making such statement, the petitioner/D.Hr has not placed any document or any substantial material establishing the ownership, nature, or value of the immovable property, nor produced sufficient material to establish the income or other means of the respondent/J.Dr, so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 51 of CPC. It is to be borne in mind the fact that the salary of the respondent/J.Dr was attached in E.P.No.61 of 2017 for a period of 24 months. In view of the proviso to Section 60 (1) of CPC, the Executing Court was justified in considering the extent to which the salary could again be proceeded against, in execution of the same decree. The Explanation to Section 51 of CPC also makes it clear that, while determining the means of the J.Dr for the purpose of Section 51 (b) of CPC, property which is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree cannot be taken into account. Therefore, basing on the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Executing Court did not commit any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner/D.Hr. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Executing Court, that the petitioner/D.Hr failed to establish the means of the SRK, J CRP No.390 of 2024 8 respondent/J.Dr cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to law. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the Order dated 08.12.2023 passed in E.P.No.25 of 2022 in O.S.No.156 of 2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner/D.Hr is at liberty to work out her remedies by filing an appropriate Execution Petition or seek any other mode of execution permissible under law, for recovery of the balance EP debt, and if any such EP is filed, the Executing Court shall consider the same on merits, without being influenced by any of the observation made by this Court in the present case. There shall be no order as to costs of the Revision Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Revision Petition shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 11th September, 2026. DNB