1 APHC010448892024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2374/2024 Between: 1. Narnavaram Raghavendra @ Raghava, s/o Pullappa Aged about 45 years, r/o Neeruguttivari Palem, Madanapalle, Chittoor district. ...PETITIONER AND 1. A Ramanujulu Ramanjaneyulu, s/o Subbanna, Aged about 45 years, r/o D.No.3-146-23-7, Choweswari Nagar, Madanapalle, Chittoor 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 allow the C.R.P by setting aside the Order dated.08-07-2024, in E.P No.55 of 2022 in O.S No.424 of 2015, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pursuant to the Order Dt.08-07-2024 in E.P No.55 of 2022 in O.S No.424 of 2015 the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Madanapaiie, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above C.R.P, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY 2 Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M VENKATA RAMANA REDDY The court made the following order: The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.07.2024 in E.P.No.55 of 2022 in O.S.No.424 of 2015 on the file of learned Addl. Senior civil judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 2. The petitioner is the J.Dr and the respondent is the D.Hr. The respondent filed O.S.No.424 of 2015 for recovery of money (Rs.3,46,000/-) based on two promissory notes. The said suit was decreed on 27.01.2016. To realize the decreetal amount, the D.Hr., filed OEP.No.3/2017 which was referred to Lok Adalath wherein an award was passed on 08.02.2020 settling the amount to Rs.3,50,000/-. The petitioner/J.Dr had paid Rs.1,00,000/- on the very same day and agreed to pay the remaining amount on or before 10.06.2020. Since, the J.Dr did not pay the balance amount within the stipulated time, the D.Hr filed E.P.No.55 of 2022 under Order XXI Rule 38 to issue a warrant of arrest against the J.Dr for not paying the balance amount to the D.Hr. To the said application, the J.Dr filed his counter stating various reasons for not paying the agreed amount to the D.Hr. After hearing both the parties, the court below has allowed the E.P and ordered issuance of warrant of arrest against the J.Dr under its order dated 08.07.2024. Assailing the said order, the J.Dr filed the present revision. 3 3. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and the contents of the counter filed before the court below contended that, the trial court had miserably failed to consider the facts of the case on hand and also the purport of the Order XXI Rule 37 in a right perspective. He further contended that, the executing court ought to have seen that the initial burden is on the D.Hr/respondent herein to prove that the petitioner has capacity to pay the decretal amount & purposefully evading the same. He further contended that, the Executing court failed to consider that the D.Hr did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove that J.Dr is evading to pay the amount, despite having means to pay. He further submitted that, in the said circumstances, without there being any evidence to show that the J.Dr is evading to pay the amount, despite having means, the executing court cannot issue a warrant of arrest against the J.Dr, as such, the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the executing court is erroneous and unsustainable. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, the petitioner/J.Dr played fraud, not only on the D.Hr but also on the court below. He further submitted that, though the decree passed by the court below has attained finality, the petitioner did not choose to file an appeal 4 questioning the same. He further submitted that, when the D.Hr filed E.P for realization of decreetal amount, he took a stand that he has no sufficient means to discharge the decreetal amount. He further submitted that, J.Dr has settled the matter before the Lok Adalath and accordingly paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the D.Hr but failed to pay the remaining amount, only to deny the fruits of the decree to the D.Hr. He further submitted that, as there is no other go, the D.Hr had filed E.P. once again but the J.Dr did not even appear before the court below to argue in his defense. In the said circumstances, unless the J.Dr contests the E.P. by entering into witness box and proves that he has no sufficient means to discharge the decreetal amount, the burden will not shift on the D.Hr to prove the same. Therefore, the learned executing court has rightly allowed the E.P by issuing the arrest warrant and detention of the J.Dr. He further submitted that, the petitioner has not raised or urged any valid grounds warranting the interference of the court, as such prayed to dismiss the revision. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 7. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the D.Hr has earlier filed E.P.No.3 of 2017 under Order XXI Rule 37, 38 seeking arrest and detention of the J.Dr for recovery of decretal debt and the same was settled before the Lok Adalath under its award dated 08.02.2020. As per the said award, it was agreed that a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- shall be received by the D.Hr towards full 5 and final settlement and on the very same day, J.Dr. paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the D.Hr and agreed to pay balance amount on or before 10.06.2020 but it was not paid, as such E.P.No.55 of 2022 was filed seeking arrest and detention of the J.Dr and the executing court has allowed the same. 8. A perusal of the counter filed by the J.Dr to E.P., shows that, in the month of March, 2020, J.Dr approached the D.Hr with part of the balance amount to be paid to him that was settled before the Lok Adalath but the D.Hr did not receive the same. If D.Hr refused to receive the amount, nothing prevented the J.Dr to deposit the same in the court as per Order XXI Rule 2. This itself shows that the J.Dr has means to pay atleast the substantial portion of the outstanding amount under the said Lok-Adalat award dated 08.02.2020. The counter, further states that during the period of Covid-19, J.Dr has totally lost his source of income, but he did not even describe as to what was his source of income before Covid-19 and how was it affected. 8. It appears that, the J.Dr did not even enter into witness box to substantiate his case and plead that, he has no sufficient means to discharge the decretal amount to the D.Hr. In the said circumstance, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner cannot contend that the burden lies on the D.Hr to prove that J.Dr has capacity to pay the decretal amount. 6 9. Further, this court on 18.10.2024 has granted stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.55 of 2022 subject to depositing of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) to the credit of the E.P. by the petitioner within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of the order and that the stay granted shall stand vacated automatically by default. On 02.01.2026, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount payable by him before the executing court within four (04) weeks from that day. This Court, again on 27.02.2026 has given one more opportunity to the petitioner to pay the balance amount payable by him before the executing court within one (01) week from the date of receipt of the order. It appears that, despite granting sufficient time, the petitioner has not complied with the said directions. 10. In the said view of facts, it can only be said that, the J.Dr is evading to pay the amount, despite having sufficient means and therefore, the executing court has rightly dealt with the case by allowing the E.P. Hence, the petitioner has not made out any grounds warranting the interference of this court and the revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS