Yarramsetty Srinivasa Rao vs Gangavarapu Venkateswarlu
2024 Latest Caselaw 7844 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Yarramsetty Srinivasa Rao vs Gangavarapu Venkateswarlu on 29 August, 2024

 APHC010883962017
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                         [3460]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

             THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                   PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                    CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5770/2017

Between:

Yarramsetty Srinivasa Rao, Guntur Dist                          ...PETITIONER

                                        AND

Gangavarapu Venkateswarlu, Guntur Dist                        ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. M K RAJ KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent:

     1. GHANTA SRIDHAR

The Court made the following:


ORDER:

1. The present Revision is filed against the order dated 15.09.2017 in E.P.No.214 of 2016 in O.S.No.763 of 2013 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, Guntur District.

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 27.10.2017, as follows:

"Notice issued.

Let notice be served upon the respondent returnable in Four weeks.

List after four weeks.

On depositing 1/4th of E.P amount within three weeks, the proceedings in E.P.No.214 of 2016 in O.S.No.763 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur shall remain stayed."

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 facts of this case, 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 15.09.2017 for arrest of the 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: 29.08.2024

IS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5770/2017

Date: 29.08.2024

IS