Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Veduupathi Moses Narayana vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd on 19 October, 2024
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3078/2023
%19.10.2024
#1. Veduruparthi Moses Narayana
......Petitioner
And:
$1. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., & 2
others
....Respondents.
!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Jakkamsettu Saraschandra Babu
^Counsel for the respondents : Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2011 SCC OnLIne SC 633
2. (2016) 3 SCC 296
3. (2020) 11 SCC 598
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3078/2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 19.10.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No
copy of the Judgment?
___________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3078/2023
ORDER:
(per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)
Heard Sri Jakkamsettu Saraschandra Babu, learned counsel for the
petitioner/Judgment Debtor (in short J.Dr.) and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam,
learned counsel for respondent No.1/Decree holder (in short D.Hr.).
2. The D.Hr. - Shriram City Union Finance Limited filed ARC.No.822 of 2017
in which the Arbitral Tribunal passed the award dated 25.09.2018 for an amount
of Rs.4,70,323/- with subsequent interest against the petitioner and present
respondent Nos.2 to 4/J.Dr.Nos.2 to 4. The award was not satisfied. The D.Hr.
filed E.P.No.12 of 2022 in the Court of the X Additional District Judge, Narasapur,
in which notice was issued to the JDrs. In Execution Petition request was made
to issue warrant of arrest against J.Dr.Nos.1 & 2 under Order 21 Rule 22, 37 & 38
of CPC. The J.Dr.No.1 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of decree
holder. The D.Hr as also the J.Dr.No.1 adduced the evidence. On behalf of D.Hr.,
PW1 was examined and on behalf of J.Dr.No.1, Rws.1 and 2 were examined. On
consideration of evidence on record, the learned Execution Court recorded the
finding that the J.Dr.No.1 has sufficient means to discharge the EP amount.
J.Dr.2 remained exparte. The Execution Petition was allowed directing to issue
warrant against J.Dr.No.1/the petitioner herein by sending to civil prison for
detention to 3 months. Challenging the said order, the present CRP under
Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no means
to satisfy the decree or to comply the terms of interim order. He submits that the
order of the Execution Court is not correct, as the burden was on the D.Hr to
establish that the J.Dr has means to pay and not on the J.Dr.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order by
submitting that the J.Dr has the means to pay and there is no illegality in the
finding recorded by the Learned Execution Court.
5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material
on record.
6. On consideration of the evidence, the Execution Court came to the
conclusion that J.Dr.No.1 has sufficient means to discharge the EP amount. The
finding is of fact and on consideration of the evidence on record, including the
evidence led by the J.Dr. It is settled in law that once the parties led evidence, the
burden of proof goes in the background. The entire evidence on record deserves
consideration, which the learned Execution Court considered.
7. In the exercise of revision jurisdiction, under Section 115 CPC, it is not
open to interfere with such a finding on fact. The Execution Court did not act
without jurisdiction nor committed any jurisdictional error in the exercise of its
jurisdiction.
8. In Deb Ratan Biswas v. Most. Anand Moyi Devi 1 , the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that it is well settled that in Civil Revision the jurisdiction of the High
Court is limited, and it can only go into the questions of jurisdiction.
9. In Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M.Chinniyan 2on the point of exercise of
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court while hearing the revision petition, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held as under:
"27. So far as the issue pertaining to exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the
High Court while hearing revision petition arising out of eviction matter is
concerned, it remains no more res integra and stands settled by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9
SCC 78. Sri R.M. Lodha, the learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench held in
para 43 thus:
"43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles
the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first
appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the
evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The
consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional
jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts
recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer
from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if
perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material
evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the
evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in
gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as
a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to
set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is
entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any
decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy
itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned
decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an
appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a
different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with
the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.
Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according
to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from
procedural illegality or irregularity."
10. In Varadarajan v. Kanakavalli 3the Hon'ble Apex Court held that an order
passed by a subordinate Court can be interfered with only if it exercises its
2011 SCC OnLine SC 633
(2016) 3 SCC 296
jurisdiction, not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so
vested or has acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
The mere fact that the High Court had a different view on the same facts would
not confer jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the Executing Court.
11. Para 15 of Varadarajan (supra) reads as under:
"15. In addition to the nature of proceedings to implead the legal representative to
execute the decree, we find that none of the tests laid down in Section 115 of the
Code were satisfied by the High Court so as to set aside the order passed by the
Executing Court. The High Court in exercise of revision jurisdiction has interfered
with the order passed by the Executing Court as if it was acting as the first court of
appeal. An order passed by a subordinate court can be interfered with only if it
exercises its jurisdiction, not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its
jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity. The mere fact that the High Court had a different view on the
same facts would not confer jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the
Executing Court. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside
and that of the Executing Court is restored. The appeal is allowed."
12. In this CRP by interim order dated 01.12.2023, the stay of all further
proceedings pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2023, was directed, subject to the
petitioner depositing 1/3rd of the EP amount within a period of 8 weeks from that
date, clearly providing further that in the event of default, the interim order shall
automatically stand vacated. Any application for extension of time was also not
filed. The petitioner did not comply with the terms of the interim order dated
01.12.2023, and did not avail the opportunity so as to avoid the implementation of
the impugned order.
(2020) 11 SCC 598
13. We do not find any illegality in the order impugned. No case is made out
for interference under Section 115 CPC.
14. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
____________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Dated: 19.10.2024
AG
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3078/2023
Dated: 19.10.2024
AG
