APHC010565442023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2900/2023 Between: 1. RAVINDRANATH FRUIT CANNING INDUSTRIES,, CHITTOOR, REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, GUTTA RAVINDRANATH NAIDU, S/O. JAYARAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. GANDRA KOTHURU, BANGALORE HIGHWAY ROAD, CHITTOOR, NOW RESIDING AT D.NO.127, STREET NO.240, B.V. REDDY COLONY, OPP- B.V.REDDY MUNICIPAL PARK, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. BASAVA KALI NAGA MADHUSUDHANA RAO, S/o. Late Sobhanachalkapati Rao, Aged about 61 years, R/o. Flat No.302, B.V.R. Towers, Near APSRTC Bus Station, Nuzvid ...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 toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order, dt.14.9.2023 in E.P.No.85/2019 in O.S.No.27/2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 2 pleased to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.85/2019 in O.S.No.27/2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor 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 prayed to vacate the Interim Order dt. 09.11.2023 passed in lA No. 1 of 2023 in CRP No. 2900 of 2023 in the interests of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor (Jdr) and the respondent is the Decree Holder (Dhr). The respondent/Dhr filed suit vide in O.S.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed ex-parte. For execution of the said decree, the respondent/Dhr filed E.P vide in EP No.85 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, for arrest of Jdr under Order XXI Rule 37 and 38 of CPC. In the said E.P, the petitioner/Jdr filed his counter denying the allegations, inter alia, contending that the amount which has been decreed was already paid to the plaintiff/Dhr and further contended that there are no merits in the execution proceedings and no cause of action to file the E.P., and prayed to dismiss the E.P. The Court below allowed the said E.P. and thereby ordered arrest of the petitioner/Jdr. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. Heard Ms.VVNV Teja, learned counsel representing Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter filed in support of the execution petition and the grounds of revision, submitted that the Dhr miserably failed to prove that the petitioner/Jdr has sufficient means and is purposefully avoiding to pay the decretal amount. In the said circumstances, ordering arrest of the petitioner is contrary to law and unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. She further contend that the amount so claimed by the petitioner in the plaint was already paid to the plaintiff 4 much before filing of the suit and the said fact has been suppressed and, with an intention to undue gain, filed the said suit and obtained ex-parte decree. In the said circumstances, if the order is allowed to subsist, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and it would also affect the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 4. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jolly George Varghese and Ors. Vs. The Bank of Cochin1, another Judgment of the Composite High Court in Tata Kesava Rao Vs. Shaik Hasan Ahmad2 and another Judgment of this Court in Sasanapuri Someswara Rao Vs. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and Ors.3, and accordingly prayed to allow the civil revision petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while justifying the orders impugned, submitted that in the counter petitioner/Jdr did not specifically plead that he has no sufficient means to discharge the decretal amount. Until and then, he pleads to the said effect, the burden will not shift on the Dhr. She further contended that, if at all the petitioner/Jdr paid the amount as alleged, he did not even question the ex-parte decree which attained finality. The said fact cannot be raised in the execution proceedings. The executing Court has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the decree passed by the Civil Court. The Judgment relied upon by the petitioner is nowhere helpful and, in fact, it goes against the petitioner. She further contended that in paragraph No.3 of the counter, the petitioner/Jdr categorically admitted that he is sole proprietor of Ravindranath Fruit Canning 1 MANU/SC/0014/1980 2 MANU/AP/0931/2017 3 MANU/AP/0215/2022 5 Industries, Chittoor and that he has mango pulp business. The execution Court has taken due note of all these aspects and rightly issued warrant of arrest. The Court below has given cogent reasons and passed orders. The petitioner neither raised nor urged valid grounds warranting interference of this Hon’ble Court and Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. It was brought to the notice of this Court that, at the time of admission of the Civil Revision Petition, 50% of the amount has been deposited as per the direction of this Court and the same was withdrawn by the Dhr. 7. In reply, the petitioner/Jdr categorically stated that the averments in the affidavit, except those expressly admitted herein, are been denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. That itself is sufficient to show that the petitioner/Jdr is not having sufficient means. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the respondent/Dhr vide in O.S.No.27 of 2019 has been decreed ex-parte and attained finality. Further, the suit vide in O.S.No.27 of 2019 was filed on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, and after passing ex-parte decree, the decree was transferred to the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, for execution. For recovery of the said decretal amount, the respondent/Dhr filed OEP No.85 of 2019 under Order XXI Rule 37 and 38 of Civil Procedure Code to detain the petitioner/Jdr in civil prison till the payment of entire E.P. amount. 10. A perusal of the record, the petitioner/Jdr filed his counter denying the allegations and the averments made in support of E.P. In the 3rd paragraph of the 6 counter, it was specifically pleaded that he is the sole proprietor of Ravindranath Fruit Canning Industries, Chittoor, and had mango pulp business. Nowhere in the counter he has specifically pleaded that the said business is not being run by him and further there is no specific pleading that he has no sufficient means to discharge the decree amount and he is not purposefully avoiding the same. The contention of the petitioner/Jdr is that in the very 2nd paragraph it was categorically denied the averments of the affidavit and that would be sufficient to show that the petitioner/Jdr is not having sufficient means. The said contention is unsustainable. Until and then the petitioner/Jdr specifically pleads the same, the burden will not shift on the Dhr to prove that Jdr has sufficient means and is purposefully avoiding payment of the decree amount. Further, record reveals that the petitioner/Jdr did not enter into the evidence box even to deny his means. In the absence of the same, now cannot contend that he is not having sufficient means. The Judgments relied upon by the petitioner, no doubt a well settled principle, but they are not helpful to the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the Judgment of the Composite High Court in V.Balachandra Naidu Vs. Dr.V.Gurubhushana Naidu4. The principle laid in the said Judgment is also well settled principle and the said case is applicable to the facts of the case, as in the present case the petitioner/Jdr admitted that he is having fruit pulp business. In Jolly George Verghese case (supra)1, the Apex Court has observed that if the decree holder is able to produce some material or evidence regarding the source and means of 4 2015 (2) ALD 742 7 the Judgment Debtor that may normally sufficient to pay the decretal amount and also the status, occupation and asserts of the Judgment Debtor, and whether such means and sources are not sufficient to pay the decretal amount, the same being especially within the knowledge of the Judgment Debtor, the burden of proving the same would be on the Judgment Debtor in view of Section 106 of Evidence Act. 12. When comparing the facts of the present case, the petitioner has admitted that he is having fruit canning business. When such is the situation, now cannot contend that he is not having sufficient means. The Court below has rightly dealt with the execution proceedings and taken due note of the settled principles of law as well and, by giving reasons, allowed the E.P. and accordingly ordered warrant of arrest against the Jdr. No valid grounds are raised or urged warranting interference of this Court and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 18th February, 2026 JLV 8 285 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2900/2023 Date: 18th February, 2026 JLV