Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Salagrama Narasimha Murthy vs M/S.Krishna Chaitanya Raw Boiled Rice ... on 4 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.133 of 2013
Salagrama Narasimha Murthy,
S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy,
Hindu, aged about 71 years, Property,
R/o. Rayavaram Village and Mandal,
East Godavari District.
... Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Krishna Chaitanya Raw & Boiled Rice Mill,
Vedurupaka Savaram, rep. by its Managing Partner,
Kovvuri Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. Buli Reddyu,
Hindu, Aged about 63 years, Business,
Vedurupaka Savaram, Rayavaram Mandal,
East Godavari District and thirteen others.
...Respondents
Mr. K. V. Subrahmanya Nausu, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5,
6 and 14.
Mr. ASC Bose, counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 12.
Mr. Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, counsel for respondent No.9.
None for respondent Nos.3, 7, 10, 11 and 13.
2 HCJ
DATE : 04.12.2023
1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against
the judgment and order dated 17.08.2012, whereby the execution
petition filed by the revision petitioner/Decree Holder (DHR), filed
under the provisions of order XXI Rule 37 has been dismissed.
2. The claim of the revision petitioner before the learned 1st
Additional District Judge, East Godavari District in execution
proceedings was that the Judgment Debtors (JDRs) had not paid
any amount towards the discharge of the decretal amount even
when they were possessed of sufficient means in that regard.
3. It was the case of the petitioner that Judgment Debtors were
having properties and were engaged in the real estate business and
they are earning more than Rs.5,00,000/- per annum and
therefore, were under an obligation to satisfy the decree. Evidence
was led in the said proceedings. Finally, the learned District Judge
held that the Decree Holder had failed to establish that the
Judgment Debtors possessed the properties and had their means to
satisfy the amount as per the Decree.
3 HCJ
4. On a perusal of the judgment and order impugned, it can be
seen that the executing Court had dealt with the evidence in
meticulous detail before arriving at the conclusion, which is
impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition.
5. Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, K. Sairam
Murthy, too appeared through hybrid mode did not argue the
matter and submitted that there was some compromise which was
being arrived at between the parties and therefore, sought
sometime to verify the same. After making the said statement the
counsel left the proceedings without so much as seeking the
permission of the Court.
6. However, on a perusal of the record, it can be seen that the
same request had been made by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner on 26.11.2021 and even before that on 06.10.2021,
when the matter was directed to be posted on 25.10.2021. Even
before that the counsel for the revision petitioner had either failed
to appear before the Court or had sought adjournments, as can also
be seen from the order dated 15.09.2021.
4 HCJ
7. Having gone through the record, it clearly appears, the
petitioner is no longer interested to pursue the matter. Even on
merits, there appears to be nothing perverse in the order passed by
the learned 1st Additional District Judge, East Godavari District
which would warrant any interference in terms of the provisions of
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
8. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
SSN
5 HCJ
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.133 of 2013
DATE : 04.12.2023
SSN
