1 HN, J C.R.P.No.731_2022 APHC010140732022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 731/2022 Between: 1. BALANI SUBBA LAKSHMI DEVI, , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. LATE RAMAIAH, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. 112, A-BLOCK, SAI AISWARYAM APARTMENT, NANDYAL TOWN AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MUKKAMALLA MAHESH BABU, Aged about 47 years, S/o. Sankaraiah, Andhra prabha telugu daily reporter, Rio. Flat No. 105, Sai Aiswaryam Apartments, Nandyal Town and Mandal, Kurnool 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 tomay be pleased to impungned order in EP 187 of 2019 in OS No.295 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Nandyal and consequently restore the EP with a direction to the execution Court to issue warrant of arrest against judgment debtor in terms of Order XXI Rule 37 CPC and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Y NAGI REDDY 2 HN, J C.R.P.No.731_2022 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in E.P.No.187 of 2019 in O.S.No.295 of 2017. The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondent, which was decreed directing the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.4,28,166/- together with interest. The petitioner filed E.P. for an amount of Rs.5,27,697/- and sought civil imprisonment of the respondent, as the respondent had willfully evaded paying the decretal amount. The E.P. was filed under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of CPC, which was dismissed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The petitioner had sought civil imprisonment of the respondent on the primarily ground that the respondent has adequate source of income and also has movable and immovable property, and only to evade repaying the petitioner and complying with the decree, has transferred the ownership of the Innova car and Royal Enfield motor vehicle in the name of his wife. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the E.P. was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could not place anything on record to show that the J.Dr had intentionally purchased the properties in the name of his wife and transferred the registration of the cars on the name of his wife. It is also submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was earning Rs.50,000/- per month as a reporter in Andhra Prabha Telugu newspaper. It is also submitted that the learned Judge erred in holding that the properties in the name of the respondent's wife cannot be treated as common properties of the respondent and his wife, more so when 3 HN, J C.R.P.No.731_2022 they are residing under the same roof. It is also submitted that the respondent had filed I.P.No.31 of 2021, which was pending at the time when the order was passed in E.P.No.187 of 2019. It is submitted that the I.P. was dismissed on 12.05.2023 on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the order passed in I.P.No.31 of 2021. It is submitted that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the E.P. on the sole ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent, though having a source of income, is evading the repayment of the amounts as directed in the decree. It is submitted that the respondent himself volunteered that he is working as a reporter in a Telugu daily and whatever income he is earning out of the said activity is not sufficient for maintaining himself. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the II Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, while dismissing I.P.No.31 of 2021, had categorically held that the respondent herein was working as a journalist and also conducting travel business by registering the vehicles on the name of this wife. It is submitted that the respondent is not inclined to honor the decree, though he has sufficient source of income. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner, in order to maintain the relief under Order XXI, Rules 37 and 38 of CPC, would have to establish before the trial Court that the petitioner, inspite of having sufficient source of income is trying to evade repayment and honoring the decree. In the absence of such an effort from the petitioner, the application filed under Order XXI, Rules 37 and 38 cannot be maintained. It is also 4 HN, J C.R.P.No.731_2022 submitted that the respondent has filed an appeal against the order passed in I.P.No.31 of 2022, and the same is pending consideration before the III Additional District Judge, Nandyal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. As seen from the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that the respondent has no sufficient means to discharge the execution petition amount and that the mother of the Judgment Debtor was treated for an ailment with an expenditure of Rs.4,50,000/-, and that he is in deep financial crisis. A reference to I.P No.31 of 2022 is also referred to in the counter. As seen from the cross-examination of the respondent, the respondent has admitted that he is getting income by working in Manam daily newspaper, and the income is about Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. It is also stated in the cross-examination that the Royal Enfield Bullet stands in the name of his wife, a Swift Dzire car, Innova car, and Innova Crysta car were also registered on the name of his wife. It is also admitted in the cross- examination that the respondent's wife is maintaining the travels and he is looking after the travels. At the same time, the respondent has denied having sufficient means of income for honoring the decree. 6. The cross-examination of the respondent would amply make it clear that the respondent has willfully evaded repayment of the amounts borrowed from the petitioner. It is also evident that the respondent is maintaining 5 HN, J C.R.P.No.731_2022 travels which is run on the name of his wife. The respondent has also admitted that his wife does not have a driving license. However, one motorcycle and three four-wheelers are registered in her name; this would suffice to conclude that the respondent has purchased the motorcycle and the three cars on the name of his wife with motives of evading repayment of money to his creditors. The travel business is run on the name of the respondent’s wife who does not have any driving license. 7. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed in E.P.No.187 of 2019 deserves to be set aside, and the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, shall issue a warrant of arrest on payment of process by the petitioner within a period of four(04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:31.03.2026 NKA 6 HN, J C.R.P.No.731_2022 145 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 731 of 2022 Date: 31.03.2026 NKA