Judgments on execution of arbitral awards must be based on factual determinations of debtor's means, and the High Court's revision allows interference only for jurisdictional errors, not fact re-evaluation.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J :

Heard Sri Jakkamsettu Saraschandra Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor (in short J.Dr.) and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned Counsel for respondent No.1/decree holder (in short D.Hr.).

2. The D.Hr.-Shriram City Union Finance Limited filed ARC No.822 of 2017 in which the Arbitral Tribunal passed the award dated 25.09.2018 for an amount of Rs.4,70,323/- with subsequent interest against the petitioner and present respondent Nos.2 to 4/J.Dr.Nos.2 to 4. The award was not satisfied. The D.Hr. filed EP No.12 of 2022 in the Court of the X Additional District Judge, Narasapur, in which notice was issued to the J.Drs. In execution petition request was made to issue warrant of arrest against J.Dr.Nos.1 & 2 under Order 21 Rules 22, 37 & 38 of CPC. The J.Dr.No.1 filed counter-affidavit denying the averments of decree holder. The D.Hr., as also the J.Dr.No.1 adduced the evidence. On behalf of D.Hr., PW1 was examined and on behalf of J.Dr.No.1, RWs.1 and 2 were examined. On consideration of evidence on record, the learned Execution Court recorded the finding that the J.Dr.No.1 has sufficient means to discharge the EP amount. J.Dr.2 remained ex parte. The execution petition was allowed directing to issue warrant against J.Dr.No.1/the petitioner herein by sending to civil prison for detention to 3 months. Challenging the said order, the present CRP under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') has been filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no means to satisfy the decree or to comply the terms of interim order. He submits that the order of the Execution Court is not correct, as the burden was on the D.Hr. to establish that the J.Dr., has means to pay and not on the J.Dr.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order by submitting that the J.Dr., has the means to pay and there is no illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Execution Court.

5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.

6. On consideration of the evidence, the Execution Court came to the conclusion that J.Dr.No.1 has sufficient means to discharge the EP amount. The finding is of fact and on consideration of the evidence on record, including the evidence led by the J.Dr. It is settled in law that once the parties led evidence, the burden of proof goes in the background. The entire evidence on record deserves consideration, which the learned Execution Court considered.

7. In the exercise of revision jurisdiction, under Section 115 CPC, it is not open to interfere with such a finding on fact. The Execution Court did not act without jurisdiction nor committed any jurisdictional error in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

8. In Deb Ratan Biswas v. Most. Anand Moyi Devi , 2011 SCC OnLine SC 633 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is well settled that in civil revision the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited, and it can only go into the questions of jurisdiction.

9. In Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan , (2016) 3 SCC 296 , on the point of exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court while hearing the revision petition, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held as under :

"27. So far as the issue pertaining to exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court while hearing revision petition arising out of eviction matter is concerned, it remains no more res integra and stands settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum C