APHC010153792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the Twenty first day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No. Between: N. Masood Vali and N. Asha Bee Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Yattapu Bharath Kumar Reddy Counsel for the respondent: 1. N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Twenty first day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No. 966 of 2026 ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Yattapu Bharath Kumar Reddy Counsel for the respondent: N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the Twenty first day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondent 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.966 of 2026 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the J.Dr. under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order, dated 09.01.2026, allowing E.P. No. 4 of 2022 in O.S.No.32 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu, filed by the D.Hr. under Order XXI, Rules 37 & 38 C.P.C. for realization of the decretal amount by arrest and detention of the respondent / J.Dr. in civil prison. 2. The suit was decreed on 21.01.2020 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,56,000/-. The D.Hr. contended that the J.Dr. having sufficient means to discharge the decretal amount as he was running a snacks shop and earning Rs.80,000/- per month, failed to discharge the decretal debt. 3. The J.Dr. filed a counter pleading that he had discharged the entire amount of the decree to the D.Hr. in the presence of the elders by receiving consideration in relation to sale of his property on 07.10.2021 to A. Bhalool Basha S/o. A. Fakroddin and that he has no means to maintain himself and his family. 4. Before the execution Court, the D.Hr., got herself examined as P.W.1 and also got examined another witness as P.W.2. No documents were exhibited on her behalf. The J.Dr. got himself examined as R.W.1 and also got examined another witness on his behalf as R.W.2. The agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. executed by the J.Dr. in favour of Bhalool Basha on 07.10.2021 vide document No.11873/2021 was exhibited as Ex.R1. 5. After hearing both the parties, the execution Court held that the J.Dr. had failed to prove that he had discharged the liability under the 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.966 of 2026 decree as pleaded and that he had failed to discharge the decretal debt in spite of having sufficient means to pay due to sale of property on 07.10.2021 as per his admission, after passing of the decree, dated 21.01.2020. The execution Court further observed that Ex. R1 being an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney cannot be considered as a sale deed and that the J.Dr. admitted in his cross- examination that the alleged purchaser’s name had not been mutated in the municipal records relating to his house. 6. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even if the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney is not a sale deed, having received the consideration thereunder, interest was created in favour of the purchaser and that since the decretal amount was discharged, nothing was left with the J.Dr. and therefore, he has no means personally. He further submitted that the D.Hr. failed to establish that the J.Dr. is doing snacks business and earning Rs.80,000/- per month, and therefore, in the absence of proof of means of the J.Dr. to discharge the decretal debt, no order of arrest can be passed. 8. He placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in Kanneganti Anjaneyulu Vs. State Bank of India1, wherein it was held at paragraph No.5 as follows: “5. … The crucial question to be considered in this revision petition is whether the order of arrest of the petitioners for the purpose of committing them in civil prison as ordered by the lower Court in execution of (the 1 1997 (2) A. L. T. 303 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.966 of 2026 decree for) payment of money is in consonance with the provisions of Section 51 of C.P.C. which reads as follows: "Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree- (a) x x x (b) x x x (c) by arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in Section 58 where arrest and detention is permissible under that Section; (d) x x x (e) x x x Provided that where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied- (a) that the judgment-debtor, with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree- (i) is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the, Court, or (ii) has, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property; or 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.966 of 2026 (b) that the judgment-debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same, or (c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account. Explanation:- In the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree." A reading of the provisions of the above Section makes it clear that the arrest and detention of a J.Dr. in civil prison in execution of a decree for payment of money is not a matter to be resorted to lightly. The scheme of Section 51, C.P.C. is to ensure that sufficient reasons exist for making an order of arrest and detention of a J.Dr. in civil prison in execution proceedings. Moreover, it is also evident that in every case of non- payment of decretal amount, a J.Dr. is not liable to be arrested and detained in civil prison unless the case falls within one of the clauses of the proviso to Section 51 C.P.C. To recover debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is flagrantly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution unless there is proof of the minimal fairness 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.966 of 2026 of his willful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means and willful neglect and refusal to pay the decree-debt. The provisions under Section 51 C.P.C. read with Rule 37 of Order and (sic. are) concerned in the interest of the protection of the liberty and freedom of the J.Dr. which the Code considers to be of paramount importance. Any provision of law pertaining to the protection of such liberty and freedom of a citizen are (sic. is) to be construed as mandatory, violation of which, invariably results in vitiating the consequential order. The Court is obliged to issue a warrant for the arrest of a J.Dr. only when there is a positive finding that the J.Dr. though having means to pay the decree debt had wilfully neglected and refused to pay the same. In the absence of such a positive finding, it would be extremely difficult to visualize that a person could be put behind the bars in pursuance of a civil proceeding by any Court of law. I am fortified in my reasoning by a decision the Supreme Court in "Jolly George Verghese & Another Vs. The Bank of Cochin [AIR 1980 SC 470].” 9. Further reliance was placed on the decision of this High Court in Bellana Sarveswara Rao Vs. Mulamandala Tulasi2, wherein after referring the decisions in Jolly George Varghese and Another Vs. The Bank of Cochin3 and Sasanapuri Someswara Rao Vs. Shriram 2 2024 Supreme (AP) 777 3 AIR 1980 SC 470 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.966 of 2026 City Union Finance Ltd. and others4, it was observed at paragraph Nos.21 to 25 as under:- “21. In Jolly George Varghese and Another Vs. The Bank of Cochin (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: “The simple default to discharge is not enough. There must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past or, alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it. The provision emphasizes the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of refusal on demand verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation under the decree. Here considerations of the debtor's other pressing needs and straitened circumstances will play prominently. We would have, by this construction, sauced law with justice, harmonised S.51 with the Covenant and the Constitution.” 22. It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even when it is pleaded that the Judgment Debtor is possessed of some immovable property, the burden lies on the Decree holder to show that the Judgment Debtor has the capacity to pay the decretal amount. 4 2022 (3) ALD 225 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.966 of 2026 23. In Sasanapuri Someswara Rao vs. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. And others (supra), this Court held as follows: “Arrest and detention of a J.Dr.in civil prison in execution of a decree for payment of money is not a matter to be resorted to lightly. The scheme of Section 51, C.P.C. is to ensure that sufficient reasons exist for making an order of arrest and detention of a J.Dr. in civil prison in execution proceedings. Moreover, it is also evident that in every case of non-payment of decretal amount, a J.Dr. is not liable to be arrested and detained in civil prison unless the case falls within one of the clauses of the proviso to Section 51 C.P.C. To recover debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is flagrantly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his willful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means and willful neglect and refusal to pay the decree-debt." 24. xx xx xx 25. It is further observed that even though the Court below is available with discretionary powers for allowing the modes of execution as just and reasonable but without resorting to any other mode of execution, passing an order under Order XXI, Rule 38 is nothing but taking away the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India and also contrary to the facts on hand or to law as explained above. Hence the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside….” 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.966 of 2026 10. The principles referred in both the decisions are well settled. Each case is to be examined whether the capacity of the J.Dr. to discharge the decretal debt has been proved or not. 11. The main contention of the petitioner is that he had discharged the decretal debt. But, he failed to do so. 12. Order XXI, Rule 2 C.P.C. is excerpted hereunder:- “2. Payment out of Court to decree-holder. (1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court or decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree-holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, and the Court shall record the same accordingly. (2) The judgment-debtor or any person who has become surety for the judgment-debtor also may inform the Court of such payment or adjustment, and apply to the Court to issue a notice to the decree-holder to show cause, on a day to be fixed by the Court, why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified; and if, after service of such notice, the decree-holder fails to show cause why the payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified, the Court shall record the same accordingly. 10 BSB, J C.R.P.No.966 of 2026 (2A) No payment or adjustment shall be recorded at the instance of the judgment- debtor unless- (a) the payment is made in the manner provided in Rule 1; or (b) the payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidence; or (c) the payment or adjustment is admitted by, or on behalf of, the decree-holder in his reply to the notice given under sub-rule (2) of Rule 1, on before the Court. (3) A payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree.” Even if there is any discharge of decree outside the Court, unless the same is recorded, it cannot be enforced. 13. Insofar as capacity is concerned, even according to the J.Dr. himself, he had the property, but he says that he sold the property and yet, failed to examine the alleged purchaser. If either the whole or in part consideration under the alleged agreement was received by the J.Dr., he had capacity to discharge the decretal debt as the date of its receipt is subsequent to the passing of the decree. If at all, the property was not sold, still, he has the property the value of which is not less than the amount due under the decree. In either case, the D.Hr. could discharge the initial burden as the J.Dr., having sufficient means to discharge the decretal debt, failed to discharge the same. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the execution Court. 11 BSB, J C.R.P.No.966 of 2026 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.21.04.2026 RAR