##PAGE1##

1

2025V:SA,JP HC:61577

C.R.P.No.254 of 2025

APHC010025562025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 254/2025

Between:

1. M MUNIRAJULU, S/O M. KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 56

YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS RESIDING AT D.NO. 2-365, NEAR RAITHU

BAZAAR K.R.PALLI, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. S UMATHI, D/O LATE NANDA GOPAL NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 54

YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO. 9-299, GURRAPPA NAIDU STREET

CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2. G HARIPRASAD, S/O LATE G. SEKHAR NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 36

YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO. 9-299, GURRAPPA NAIDU STREET,

CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

3. M SAVITRI, W/O M. MUNIRAJULU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC.

HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO. 2-365, NEAR RAITHU BAZAAR

K.R.PALLI, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

4. K GEETHA, W/O SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

RESIDING AT D.NO. 2-349, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE,

SATHYANARAYANAPURAM CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

RESPONDENTS NO. 3 AND 4 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES.

...RESPONDENT(S):

2

2025V:SA,JP HC:61577

C.R.P.No.254 of 2025

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.

26.09.2024 made in E.P.No. 37 of 2021 in L.A.A.No. 2861 of 2016 in

P.L.P.No. 2559 of 2016 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor,

Chittoor Distric

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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

please to stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No. 37 of 2021 in L.A.A.No.

2861 of 2016 in P.L.P.No. 2559 of 2016 on the file of IX Additional District

Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District pending disposal of the main C.R.P. and

pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

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

may be pleased to vacate the interim stay passed in CRP No. 254/2025

dated 7.2.2025 in the interest of justice and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. O UDAYA KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. T C KRISHNAN

2.

The Court made the following:

3

2025V:SA,JP HC:61577

C.R.P.No.254 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition came to be filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by the petitioner/judgment debtor No.1 aggrieved by the

order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned IX Additional District judge,

Chittoor in E.P.No.37 of 2021, whereby, the Court below allowed the

application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/decree holders 1 and 2 under

Order XXI Rule 37 and under Section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(hereinafter be referred to as „CPC‟), requesting the Court below issue arrest

warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor No.1 under Order XXI Rule 38

of CPC and to detain him in civil prison.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

(a) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as

they are arrayed before the Court below in the execution petition. The

judgment debtors initially purchased the subject property from the decree

holders under four sale deeds bearing Doc No.917 of 2013, dated

12.04.2013, Doc No.918 of 2013, dated 12.04.2013, Doc No.919 of 2013,

dated 12.04.2013 and Doc No.2028 of 2015, dated 06.04.2015. As the

judgment debtors were in dire need of money, they intended to reconvey the

sale deeds in favour of the decree holders. Hence, the judgment debtors filed

a pre litigation petition (PLP.No.2559 of 2016), which was compromised by

both the parties at the intervention of the Lok Adalat and the same was

4

2025V:SA,JP HC:61577

C.R.P.No.254 of 2025

disposed of with certain terms and conditions in L.A.A.No.2861 of 2016, dated

25.07.2016. The following are the terms and conditions agreed upon both the

parties:

“1. The