Between vs And
2024 Latest Caselaw 6899 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Between vs And on 8 August, 2024

APHC010447132014
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                               PRADESH
                                                       [3460]
                            AT AMARAVATI
                     (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST
             TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                           PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
             CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3332/2014
Between:
M.sekhar Reddy                                  ...PETITIONER
                              AND
B Madhava Subba Reddy                         ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
   1. B SIVA KESAVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
   1. K V RAGHU VEER
The Court made the following:
                                       2




      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3332 of 2014


ORDER:

The present revision is filed against the order dated

30.06.2014 in E.P.No.188 of 2012 in O.S.No.552 of 2008 passed

by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The

petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. As the

amount was not recovered, E.P. was filed seeking arrest of the

petitioner. The trial Court, after enquiry, found that the petitioner

was having sufficient means. Hence, allowed the E.P.

Questioning the same, the present C.R.P is filed.

3. This Court passed an interim order on 24.09.2014, as

follows:

                     Issue      urgent     notice    to    the
             respondent.
                     Post after four (4) Weeks.
                             CRP.MP.NO.4554 of 2014
                     On      condition    of   the   petitioner

deposing /14th of the E.P.amount within six

(6) weeks from today, there shall be interim stay as prayed for."

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

he is not sure whether the interim order has been complied with

or not.

5. The trial Court had passed a detailed order establishing the

means even though the enquiry is of a summary nature. This

being a fact finding aspect, this Court does not find any reason to

interfere with the order of the trial Court on the aspect of the

means of the petitioner. Further, there is no explanation from the

petitioner as what he has done with the suit amount taken from

the plaintiff. The Court would not be in a position to presume that

the said amount is expended until the judgment debtor say so.

6. In view of the conditional order passed by this Court, the

ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is granted nine (9)

months time from today to pay the balance amount to the full

satisfaction of the E.P. In default, the trial Court can proceed with

the order dated 30.06.2014 for arrest of petitioner without further

reference to this Court.

7. With the above directions and observations, the Civil

Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a

sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J Date: 08.08.2024 KLP