APHC010625132022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2385/2022 Between: 1.Dr. VARADA APARNA,, W/O KOTRA ABHILASH @ ABHI, D/O VARADA NAGESWARA RAO (RTD.MRO), HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ASST. PROFESSOR, K,G.H, VISAKHAPATNAM, NOW R/O 10-30/1, PLOT NO. 261, VISALAKSHINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530043 ...PETITIONER AND 1.SMT CHNADRA LEELA KANAGALA KOTRA, W/o Kotra Appa Rao, S.0 by caste, Hindu, Aged about 63 years, Rtd. Employee, R/o 58-14-88/1B, VUDA layout, Marripalem, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam- 530009. ...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 toplease to allow the C.R.P. by setting aside the Decreetal order and Order dated 18.08.2022 made in I.A.No.10 of 2022 in O.S.No.85 of 2022 pending on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 all further proceedings in O.S.No.85 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above civil revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PILLI SUNDEEP Counsel for the Respondent: 1.A RADHAKRISHNA The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2385 OF 2022 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in IA.No.10 of 2022 in OS No. 85 of 2022 by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed interlocutory application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC seeking a direction to the respondent to furnish security for the suit amount and in case of failure to furnish the security seeking attachment of the movable property. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner lent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent and the respondent has not repaid the same amount. The transaction was completed and the petitioner submitted the relevant bank details which indicate encashment of the cheque. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the transaction was completed and the learned Judge ought to have allowed the interlocutory application and directed the respondent to furnish the security for the suit amount. It is submitted that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the interlocutory application on the sole ground that the petitioner did not adduce any documentary proof to show that the amount paid by the petitioner was towards a loan transaction. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner extended the loan to the respondent and apart from the said cheque, 3 there was no other document which could be considered by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner sought for attachment of the four wheeler car belonging to the respondent and that the petitioner and the respondent are related. It is submitted that the respondent is the mother-in-law of the petitioner and on account of certain family disputes the petitioner had filed a case in Crime No.273 of 2021 alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. It is also submitted that on account of family disputes the petitioner has filed the interlocutory application seeking attachment of the car belonged to the respondent. 5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 6. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of relief in IA No.10 of 2022. The petitioner has contended in the affidavit that the respondent has only one movable property i.e., her car and that she is trying to alienate the same. In the event the respondent alienates the said car, the petitioner would not be able to recover any money from the respondent. 7. The learned Judge has considered the affidavit of the petitioner and also the submissions of the petitioner and the respondent before dismissing the IA.No.10 of 2022. The criteria for grant of relief under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 are well established. The petitioner would have to 4 plead and establish the averments that the petitioner would be subject to grave and irreparable loss in the event the relief is not granted. 8. On the facts of this case, admittedly the petitioner and the respondent are relatives and the family disputes resulted in the petitioner filing a complaint against the respondent and others. The Court disbelieved the version of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to establish the primary contention that the cheque was issued by the petitioner towards a loan transaction. Without the petitioner able to substantiate her contention, the Court has rightly dismissed the petition. On these considerations this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. 9. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit has been pending for the last four years, the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, shall endeavour to dispose of the suit on merits within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.Accordingly Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 5 124 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2385 OF 2022 Dated 28.01.2026 KGM