* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 324/2025

% 09.05.2025

# Boina China Pothu Raju.

……Petitioner

And:

$ Meda Naga Sivaji

….Respondent

!Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar

^Counsel for the respondent : --

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1947 Madras 216

2. AIR 1955 SC 376

3. 1993 Supp(1) SCC 693

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 324/2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 09.05.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No copy of the Judgment?

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI,J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 324/2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.10 of 2008 for recovery of amount against the petitioner/defendant based on the promissory note.

3. In the suit the order of attachment of property was passed in I.A.No.203 of 2008. The suit was finally decreed on 11.02.2010 in the following terms:

―i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,95,400/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and ii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,228/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his institutional costs of Rs.2-00 (as no bill of costs filed the institutional costs is taxed to the defendant).‖

4. The defendant did not comply with the decree. So, the plaintiff/Decree Holder (in short D.Hr) filed E.P.No.48 of 2018 for execution of a decree under Order 21 Rule 64 to 66 CPC by auction of E.P. schedule property. The decree holder filed EA.No.19 of 2024 for making proposed amendments in EP for simultaneous execution of decree by adding the prayer that the defendant/Judgment Debtor (in short ‗J.Dr‘) was liable for arrest and to be sent to Civil detention.

5. The EA.No.19 of 2024, with the proposed amendments reads as under:

i) To insert in column No.11 of the E.P after against the property of the JDR and against JDR ii) To insert in column No.12 after Order 21 Rule 82, Order 21 Rule 37, 38 of the CPC.

iii) To insert in column No.13 in 6^th line after Order 21 Rule 22, Order 21, Rule

37, 38 of the CPC before the word for recovery of the decree amount.

6. The J.Dr filed his counter inter-alia denying the contents of the EA and submitted that the petition was filed for time barred relief, and ought not to be numbered as per law.

7. The Execution Court framed the following point for consideration:

―As to whether the petition (EA.No.19 of 2024) can be allowed as prayed for.‖

8. The learned Execution Court observed that every decree for the payment of money including a decree for the payment of money as the alternative to some other relief, may be executed by the detention in the Civil prison of the J.Dr or by the attachment and sale of his property or by both. The D.hr has a right generally to execute the decree simultaneously against the person and property of the J.Dr. In case of money decrees there is no such impediment to refuse simultaneous execution. There is also no bar for amendment in the EP, filed on the decree seeking for recovery of the amount.

EA.No.19 of 2024 was thus allowed by an order dated 12.12.2024.

9. Challenging the order, dated 12.12.2024 the defendant/J.Dr has filed the present CRP under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Execution Court legally erred in allowing EA.No.19 of 2024 filed under Order 21 Rule 17 and 21 for amendment in E.P.No.48 of 2018 for the prayer which was barred by limitation. He placed reliance in the case of Sri Raja DK. Venkata Lingama Nayanim Bahadur Varu v.