Bheemathati Kondaiah, vs Chintha Sreenivasulu,
2024 Latest Caselaw 8959 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Bheemathati Kondaiah, vs Chintha Sreenivasulu, on 26 September, 2024

APHC011376862016
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3460]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

     THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                               PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

               CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2357/2024

Between:

B Kondaiah, Nellore Dist                           ...PETITIONER

                                 AND

C Sreenivasulu Nellore Dist                      ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. ALLAM RAMESH

Counsel for the Respondent:

   1.

The Court made the following:
                                       2




       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) NO.519 of 2016

ORDER:

1. The present Revision filed questioning the Order dated 10.09.2015 in E.P.No.126 of 2012 in O.S.No.360 of 2010 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, Nellore 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. Heard Sri Allam Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. This Court passed an interim order on 10.06.2016, as follows:

"On condition of the petitioner-judgment debtor depositing one-third of the decretal amount to the credit of E.P.No.126 of 2012 in O.S.No.360 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, within a period of four weeks from today, there shall be stay of his arrest, pending consideration of the Revision.

Notice."

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 10.09.2015 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: 26.09.2024

IS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2357/2024

Date: 26.09.2024

IS