APHC010400072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. PEDDIBOINA VENKATA MOHAN, S/O. LATE VEERASWAMY, AGED 68 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO. 4 VILLAGE, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. VALLABHANI SRINIVASA VENKATA RAMANA, S/o. Late Ramulu, aged 62 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 1 Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toBeing aggrieved by the Order Dt. 17.07.2025 passed in E.P. No. 38 of 2022 in O.S No. 85 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal Civil Judge Senior Division Kowur, West Godavari District, 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 pleased to grant stay of operation of Order 38 of 2022 in O.S No. 85 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1951/2025 PEDDIBOINA VENKATA MOHAN, S/O. LATE VEERASWAMY, AGED 68 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO. 4-14, GAVARAVARAM VILLAGE, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND VALLABHANI SRINIVASA VENKATA RAMANA, S/o. Late Ramulu, aged 62 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 1-47, Ballipadu Village, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toBeing aggrieved by the Order Dt. 17.07.2025 passed in E.P. No. 38 of 2022 in O.S No. 85 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal Division Kowur, West Godavari District, 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 operation of Order Dt. 17.07.2025 passed in E.P. No. 38 of 2022 in O.S No. 85 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal RC,J CRP No.1951 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI PEDDIBOINA VENKATA MOHAN, S/O. LATE VEERASWAMY, AGED 14, GAVARAVARAM VILLAGE, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER VALLABHANI SRINIVASA VENKATA RAMANA, S/o. Late Ramulu, 47, Ballipadu Village, ...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 toBeing aggrieved by the Order Dt. 17.07.2025 passed in E.P. No. 38 of 2022 in O.S No. 85 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal 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 Dt. 17.07.2025 passed in E.P. No. 38 of 2022 in O.S No. 85 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal RC,J CRP No.1951 of 2025 2 Civil Judge [Senior Division] Kowur, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the main CRP and to pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to extend 2 months time for complying with the condition to deposit 50% of the decretal amount as directed by this Hon’ble Court by an Order Dt. 07.08.2025 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2025 in CRP No. 1951 of 2025, in the interests of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PANCHAGNULA RISHYENDRA SAI RC,J CRP No.1951 of 2025 3 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 17.07.2025 passed in E.P.No.38 of 2022 in O.S.No.85 of 2013 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur of West Godavari District. 2. The Revision Petitioner is the Respondent/J.Dr.and the respondent is the petitioner/D.Hr. in E.P.No.38 of 2022 in O.S.No.85 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur of West Godavari District. 3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that (i) The Decree Holder filed E.P.No.38 of 2022 under Order-21, Rules 37 & 38 of CPC to send the J.Dr. to Civil Prison for realization of the decretal amount, contending that earlier he filed E.P.No.36 of 2017 for sale of the property belongs to J.Dr. and since the J.Dr. obstructed the prospective bidder from participating in the auction, the said E.P.was not pressed and accordingly was dismissed on 25.04.2022. The J.Dr. owns movable and immovable properties besides Saw Mill in Koyyalagudem, two storied building in Ac.0-37 cents worth more than Rs.2 crores, besides has cash of Rs.10 lakhs on hand. That though the J.Dr. has means to discharge, he is avoiding to RC,J CRP No.1951 of 2025 4 discharging the decretal amount and hence the J.Dr. has to be sent to civil prison. (ii) The J.Dr. resisted the claim of the D.Hr. by filing counter denying the averments of the execution petition further contending that the J.Dr. did not own any properties and he has no source of income for his livelihood and that he is suffering from cardiac disease. That the J.Dr. has no means to pay the decree debt and that the earlier E.P.36 of 2017 filed by D.Hr. for sale of the immovable property was not pressed by the D.Hr. upon realizing that the property sought to be sale is not that of the J.Dr. That as the J.Dr.has no means to pay the decree debt, the petition is liable to be dismissed. (iii) The Executing Court upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties, allowed the Execution Petition thereby ordering for issuance of warrant of arrest against the J.Dr.on payment of process. (iv) The said order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petiton. 4. Heard Sri Panchagnula Rishyendra Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice as could be evidenced by postal track report, the respondent did not choose to appear either in person or through any Advocate. RC,J CRP No.1951 of 2025 5 5. Sri Panchagnula Rishyendra Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Section 51 of C.P.C. clearly states that it is for the Decree Holder to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the Judgment Debtor has means to pay the decree amount and is refusing to pay the same. He would further contend that though the D.Hr., did not file even scintilla of evidence to show that the J.Dr. owns house, sawmill and other properties as alleged by him, the learned Executing Judge by wrongly fixing the burden on the J.Dr. that if really the property does not belong to him nothing prevented him from filing revenue records of the said property, erroneously allowed the Execution Petition. He would further contend that throwing the burden on the Judgment Debtor to prove that a particular property does not belong to him is contra to the intendment of Section 51 of Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the order impugned is perverse and the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The Judgment Debtor in counter denied to have owned property as stated by the Decree Holder. In cross-examination of Decree Holder, the Judgment Debtor suggested his stand putforth in the counter. The Decree Holder denied the suggestion that if really the Judgment Debtor had property, he would have proceeded on the property instead of filing this E.P.seeking RC,J CRP No.1951 of 2025 6 arrest. In cross-examination, the J.Dr. though admitted that a sawmill and two storied building was attached before judgment in the suit, however denied to have owned that property. 8. Admittedly, the Decree Holder did not file even a scrap of paper to prove that the property attached before judgment in the suit belongs to the Judgment Debtor. The earlier Execution Petition No.36 of 2017 filed by the Decree Holder for sale of immovable property was dismissed as not pressed. According to the Decree Holder, the Judgment Debtor prevented the bidders from participating in the sale, whereas according to Judgment Debtor, the Decree Holder, having realized that the said property does not belong to Judgment Debtor, filed not press memo. 9. The observation of the learned Judge that if really the property for sale of which earlier E.P. was filed does not belong to the J.Dr., then nothing prevented him from filing revenue record for the attached property to prove the same. The said observation is contra to the intendment of Section 51 CPC which lays down that it is for the decree-holder to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the revision petitioner has means to pay the decree amount and is refusing or neglecting to pay the same. On the converse, the Decree Holder also is not prevented from filing the revenue record to show that the said property belong to the J.Dr. If the Decree Holder files such revenue record, then certain amount of sanctity can be attached to his contention that RC,J CRP No.1951 of 2025 7 since the J.Dr. was preventing bidders from participating in the auction, he resorted to file this execution petition seeking his arrest. 10. The Decree Holder, except a bald averment that Judgment Debtor owns two storied building and saw mill, has not produced any other evidence either oral or documentary, to show that judgment is owning such property and that he is deriving income from them which would be sufficient to discharge the decree debt. In the absence of any such evidence, the vague suggestion of P.W.1 would not substitute the proof and cannot be said that the Decree Holder could prove that the J.Dr. though possessing sufficient means is neglecting to pay the decree debt, as ordained under Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. The impugned order of the execution court suffers from legal infirmity, inasmuch as it seeks to presume the existence of means on the part of the revision petitioner and throws the burden on him to disprove the same, which is contra to the intendment of Section 51 of Code of Civil Procedure and also the observations made in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin1. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this Civil Revision Petition has to be allowed. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior 1. (1980) 2 SCC 360 RC,J CRP No.1951 of 2025 8 Division), Kovvur of West Godavari District. Consequently, E.P.No.38 of 2022 in O.S.No.85 of 2013 on the file of the court of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kovvur of West Godavari District shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 25TH February, 2026. RR