APHC010231362026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3572] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1417/2026 Between: 1. K MUNEESWARA NAIDU, S/O K.AKKULAPPA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O D.NO.28/102/15, KOTHAPETA, PUNGANUR, ANNAMAYYA (OLD CHITTOOR) DISTRICT - 517247. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS G.P.A HOLDER, MADANAPALLE BRANCH, MADANAPALLE - 517325. 2. P MOHAN KUMAR, S/O PAINEEDI BABU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS GADDAMVARIPALLI, CHOWDEPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517257. 3. K RAMANA, S/O K VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1/2, BHAVANI NAGAR, DIGUVAPALLI, CHOWDEPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517257. 4. P BABU NAIDU, S/O P VENKATAPPA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-349, PEDDAKAMPALLI, GADDAMVARIPALLI, CHOWDEPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517257. (2 TO 4 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 2 (RNT, J & BM, J C.R.P.No.1417 of 2026) pleased tobegs to the present memorandum of Civil Revision Petition, being aggrieved by the action of the Honble LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT and SESSIONS JUDGE MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 stay all further proceedings in the EP.No.52 of 2025 in A.R.C.No.122 of 2019 of the petitioner on file of the court of the Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalli, pending disposal of C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following : 3 (RNT, J & BM, J C.R.P.No.1417 of 2026) ORDER :- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Balaji Medamalli ) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short ‘CPC’) assailing the order dated 16.04.2026 passed in E.P.No.52 of 2025 in A.R.C.No.122 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, whereby the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner/Award Holder under Order 21 Rules 22, 43, 64 to 66 CPC, was allowed and issued warrant of attachment under Order 21 Rule 43, overruling the objection raised by the Judgment-Debtors. 2. Heard Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/2nd respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no immovable properties and that, as stated in the counter-affidavit filed before the Executing Court, he is leading a parasite life and is surviving at the mercy of others without proper food, clothing and shelter. It is further submitted that the petitioner possesses only movable properties worth about Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- and that he is willing to deposit the said amount before the Court as security. 4. The learned Executing Court, upon considering the objections raised by the petitioner, observed that when the Execution Petition is filed seeking attachment and sale of movable properties, it is incumbent upon the Judgment-Debtor to identify and show the schedule properties to the Amin 4 (RNT, J & BM, J C.R.P.No.1417 of 2026) at the time of execution of the warrant. In the absence of such identification and when the properties are not found in the petition schedule, the question of effecting attachment would not arise. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Executing Court rejected the objection and passed the impugned order. 5. However, the petitioner now seeks to contend that he has no means and is prepared to deposit the value of his movable properties worth about Rs.7,000/- or Rs.8,000/-. The said contention cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Executing Court, particularly when, in the counter-affidavit filed before the Executing Court, the petitioner himself had pleaded that he has no assets or means whatsoever. The Executing Court has considered the objection raised and having observed as stated above, allowed the petition. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, so also the material available on record, this Court finds that the Executing Court has rightly appreciated the pleadings and the material on record and has committed no jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. We find no illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order. No case for interference is made out in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5 (RNT, J & BM, J C.R.P.No.1417 of 2026) 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Executing Court by filing an appropriate application for offering to deposit E.P., amount, if any, or for any other relief as may be available to him under law. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI,J Date :08.05.2026. RPD. 6 (RNT, J & BM, J C.R.P.No.1417 of 2026) 148 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI (DISMISSED) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1417 OF 2026 Date: 08.05.2026 RPD. 7 (RNT, J & BM, J C.R.P.No.1417 of 2026)