APHC010707502022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2867/2022 Between:

1. P ILLI KRISHNAKANTH, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, HINDU, 53 YEARS, D.NO.9-29-7/3, BALAJI NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP ...PETITIONER AND

1. N EELAMSETTY VENKATA SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. KATAJI RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D.NO.30-12-10, RANGA STREET, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM-20.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in E.P.No.144 of 2014 in OS No.1916 of 2011 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. The respondent filed the E.P. seeking to send the petitioner to civil imprisonment on his failure to pay the execution amount. The learned Judge allowed the E.P. and directed the petitioner to civil imprisonment on his failure to pay the execution amount to the respondent. Accordingly, arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in passing an ex parte decree and that without any prima facie evidence, the suit was decreed. It is further submitted that though the petitioner filed an appeal against the said decree, the appeal suit was also dismissed. It is also submitted that A.S.No.11 of 2015 was also dismissed. It is submitted that both the orders are patently erroneous, as there is no evidence to establish the financial transaction between the parties to the suit. It is further submitted that while filing the E.P, the respondent ought to have submitted some documents to establish that the petitioner has the capacity to repay the decretal amount. It also submitted that the respondent also failed to submit any document, which would evidence that the petitioner has sufficient means of income for satisfying the decretal amount. It is submitted that the learned Judge erred in relying on the portion of the cross-examination whereby the petitioner had not denied the submission and suggestion that the petitioner could not pay the due amount on account of losses sustaining by him. It is also submitted that the petitioner is running a Vespa showroom in the name of ORA Motors. The learned Judge has been hyper technical in holding that the petitioner has not denied the said fact. It is submitted that when the petitioner's liberty is under threat on account of seeking civil imprisonment, it is the bounden responsibility of the respondent to establish that the petitioner has sufficient means of livelihood and sufficient income to satisfy the decreed amount and that the petitioner is deliberately avoiding paying the decretal amount.

4. Notice is sent to the respondent and proof of service is filed. When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the respondent today.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Perused the record.

7. The short point for consideration is, whether the order passed in E.P.No.144 of 2014 in O.S.No.1916 of 2011, deserves to be set aside. The E.P. was filed in the year 2014. The suit was decreed on 25.08.2014. The suit for recovery of money was decreed in the year 2014 and the E.P. was allowed on 30.09.2022. Even assuming that the petitioner had sustained loss as on the date of cross-examination, substantial time has lapsed from the date of decree till the allowing of E.P by the learned Judge. This Court while admitting the C.R.P on 03.01.2023, granted stay on the order passed E.P subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the E.P amount.

8. Considering the submissions that the petitioner has deposited the 50% amount, as directed by this Court and that the respondent has also withdrawn the same from the Court. The order passed by the learned Judge deserves no interference as the g