APHC010073572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. KOPPULA SRIHARI,, S/O VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2 VILLAGE, UNGATURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. YADLA LAKSHMANA RAO, S/o Peesu @ Raja Rao 53 years, R/o D.NOi3 Godavari District Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High pleased to may be pleased For these grounds and other grounds that would be urged at the time of hearing It is prayed that this Honble Court may please ALLOW the Civil Revision Petition by set aside the Docket Order dated 11.01.2024 passed in EP Ho.48/2022 in OS No. 148/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepafligudem in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supp may be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings in EP No.48/2022 in OS No.148/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepalligudem, in the interest of justice and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 301/2024 KOPPULA SRIHARI,, S/O VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-65/1, BOMMIDI VILLAGE, UNGATURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND YADLA LAKSHMANA RAO, S/o Peesu @ Raja Rao, Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/o D.NOi3-39, Bommidi Village, Ungaturu Mandal, West ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High pleased to may be pleased For these grounds and other grounds that would be urged at the time of hearing It is prayed that this Honble Court may please ALLOW the Civil Revision Petition by set aside the Docket Order dated d in EP Ho.48/2022 in OS No. 148/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepafligudem in the interest of justice and pass 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 grant STAY of all further proceedings in EP No.48/2022 in OS No.148/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepalligudem, in the interest of justice and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI KOPPULA SRIHARI,, S/O VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, 65/1, BOMMIDI VILLAGE, UNGATURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER , Hindu, aged about 39, Bommidi Village, Ungaturu Mandal, West ...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 may be pleased For these grounds and other grounds that would be urged at the time of hearing It is prayed that this Honble Court may please ALLOW the Civil Revision Petition by set aside the Docket Order dated d in EP Ho.48/2022 in OS No. 148/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepafligudem in the interest of justice and pass Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ort of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings in EP No.48/2022 in OS No.148/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepalligudem, 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the correctness and the legality of the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepalligudem, in Execution Petition No.48 of 2022 in Original Suit No.148 of 2006, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition is that: i) The petitioner herein is Judgment Debtor and the respondent herein is decree holder in E.P.No.48 of 2022. ii) The decree holder, being the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.148 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepalligudem for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed on 15.06.2010. The respondent herein/decree holder filed E.P.No.48 of 2022 under Order XXI Rule37 CPC seeking recovery of the E.P amount from the Judgment Debtor by way of arrest. iii) To the said petition, the petitioner/Judgment Debtor filed counter stating that he has no means to discharge the E.P amount and that he never refused to discharge the decree amount. It was further contended that the Decree Holder never demanded payment from the Judgment Debtor in view of the pendency of the other civil proceedings. It was further contended that the suit was decreed on 15.06.2010 and the Execution Petitioner was presented on 28.11.2022, hence, the Execution Petition is barred by limitation. 4 iv) Upon considering the submissions, the Court below issued a warrant of arrest against the Judgment Debtor by way of docket order dated 11.01.2024 on the ground that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rahul S.Shah, the case does not fall under exceptional circumstances warranting the recording of evidence of the decree holder, and therefore proceeded to issue a warrant of arrest against the Judgment Debtor, directing payment on or before 15.02.2024. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the petitioner herein/Judgment Debtor filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard Sri J.V.Phanidutt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.V.Jaggireddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter affidavit filed before the Execution Court, submitted that the petitioner has no means to discharge the EP amount. The suit was decreed on 15.06.2010, whereas the present Execution Petition was filed on 28.11.2022, which is barred by limitation. Despite taking such a stand, though the burden heavily lies on the decree holder to prove that the Judgment Debtor has sufficient means and is deliberately evading payment of decree amount, the Court below, without assigning any reasons and by passing a cryptic order, directed the arrest of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor. If such order is allowed to subsist, the petitioner’s rights will be adversely affected. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanneganti 5 Anjaneyulu v. State Bank of India represented by its Branch Manager, Tenali1. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent fairly contended that the Court below ought to have assigned reasons and requested this Court to set aside the order and remand the matter to the Court below for fresh adjudication. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein/decree holder got filed suit in O.S.148 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepalligudem, which was decreed on 15.06.2010 and the same has attained finality. In order to realize the decetal amount, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.48 of 2006 under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor that he has no means to discharge the EP amount and the suit was decreed on 15.06.2010 and the EP was presented on 28.11.2022, hence, the EP is barred by limitation. 9. In Kanneganti Anjaneyulu’s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that : “ The Court is obliged to issue a warrant for the arrest of a J.Dr only when there is a positive finding that the J.Dr though 1 1996 Supreme (AP) 1092 6 having means to pay the decree debt had willfully neglected and refused to pay the same. In the absence of such a positive finding, it would be extremely difficult to visualize that a person could be put behind the bars in pursuance of a civil proceeding by any Court of law. I am fortified in my reasoning by a decision of the Supreme Court in ‘Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin.’ 10. In the case of Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that ‘mere inability to pay a debt is not sufficient to justify imprisonment, as it must be accompanied by proof of bad faith or willful refusal to pay.’ 11. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically stated and supported by his counter affidavit, that he has no means to pay the decretal amount. The Execution Petition was filed more than twelve years after the decree, and the burden of proving willful evasion of payment rests on the decree holder. The Court below has failed to examine these aspects and passed a cryptic order directing arrest without recording reasons or considering the petitioner’s financial incapacity, as such the matter requires reconsideration. 12. In view of the above and following the principles laid down in Jolley George’s case, this Court is of the view that the order impugned dated 11.01.2024 warrants interference. The warrant of arrest against the petitioner/judgment debtor cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 1980 AIR (SC) 470 7 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepalligudem, in Execution Petition No.48 of 2022 in O.S.No.148 of 2006 is set aside. No arrest shall be effected against the petitioner/judgment debtor in connection with the said Execution Petition. The matter is remitted to the Court below for fresh consideration in accordance with law, keeping in view the petitioner’s financial capacity and the principles laid down in Jolley George’s case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 09.03.2026 MP 8 245 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:301 of 2024 Date: 09.03.2026 MP