THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.1091 of 2025

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the order dated 10.03.2025 in E.P.No.31 of 2018 in O.S.No.2077 of 2010 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (for short, ‘the impugned order’)

2. Heard Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the petition which was filed by the respondent / decree holder under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 and also under Section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and directed arrest of petitioner / Judgment-Debtor No.2 and also detention in a civil prison for a period of one month subject to payment of necessary allowances by the respondent /

decree holder.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied heavily upon the financial capacity of the petitioner to seek indulgence and interference to the impugned order. According to him, the petitioner does not have any means nor does he have any property in his name to clear the debts in favour of the respondent / decree holder. He further submitted that status of the petitioner / Judgment- Debtor No.2 is only a guarantor and that no steps and efforts have been made to realize the decreetal amount from the original beneficiary from the time the petitioner stood as a guarantor. He further submitted that the Trial Court has proceeded to decide the application in a mechanical manner ignoring the judicial precedents those which have been enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jolly George Varghese and another vs. The Bank of Cochin1, and by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana respectively, in the case of E.N. Satyanarayana vs. Chowdamma2, and Sri Tata Kesava Rao vs. Sri Shaik Hasan Ahmad, 2018 (5) A.L.D. 694

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that since the petitioner did not have financial means to

1 (1980) 2 S.C.C. 360 2 2009 (4) A.L.D. 666

pay the decreetal amount and petitioner had also failed to produce sufficient material before the Trial Court to show that he does not sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the petition filed by the respondent / decree holder. He therefore prayed for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the instant is a case where decree has been granted by the Trial Court on 09.08.2017 and thereafter execution proceedings have been initiated by the decree holder, vide E.P.No.31 of 2018 in O.S.No.2077 of 2010 which is almost 7 to 8 years from the date the decree had been passed. He further submitted that it has been almost 15 years since the original suit was filed, and till date the respondent / Decree-Holder has not been able to reap the fruit of the order passed by the Trial Court on

09.08.2017.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and also taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case, what is relevant at this juncture is the finding given by the Trial Court in its impugned order at paragraph No.13, which for ready reference is extracted hereunder, viz., “13. During cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that :

(a) The execution petition was filed against him for arrest and detention in civil prison due to non-payment of the decreetal amount;

(b) Ex.A2, the income tax return, belongs to him, showing an income of Rs.2,75,250/- for the Assessment Year 2006-07;

(c) The decree holder accepts his surety based on his financial capacity;

(d) He had not paid any amount towards the decreetal amount from the date of default to the present date;

(e) He had not filed any documents to prove his alleged financial incapacity;

(f) He had sold a joint independent house in 2013, receiving Rs.50 lakhs which was in his mother’s name; and (g) H