The High Court · 2025

the aifidavit filed in support ol' the petition, the High Court may be pleased to d-.'_ ,i acatc the interim.order passccl in lr\ No. 1 of 2024 irr CRI' No. 721 of 2024 dt.26- 09-2024. C--ounsel for the Petitionc.rs: Sri Il. Ranga rra tharr-r C-cln nsel for tht' Res l-rc,r-rtlen t: Sri (-ha I [a Sri n ii,as. 'flre Court rnatle the following: ORDER I I I { -, L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No.721 of 2o24 ORDER: Challenging the order dated O2.02.2O24 passed in E.P.No.86 of 2016 in O.S.No.129 of 2OO5 by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the decree holder Iiled E.P.No.86 of 2016 under Order XXI Rule 37 and 40 of CPC to arrest arrd detain judgment debtor No. 1 in civil prison for executing the decree in O.S.No. 129 of 2OO5. The decree holder alleged that judgrnent debtor No.1 was purposefully delaying the execution despite having sufficient means. The judgment debtor opposed the petition, stating that he had no movable or immovable properties, r^.as not working due to health reasons, and that the petition was barred by the principle of res judicata. The trial court after hearing both sides allowed the petition, holding that judgment debtor No. 1 had willlully failed to pay the decree debt and had sufflcient means to pay at least a substantial portion of the decree - { I I a, 2 SI{S,J C.R.P.No.72l ol2024 arnount. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is liled.

3. Heard Sri R. Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Challa Srinivas, leamed counsel appearing on behalfof the respondents.

4. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the lower court is unjust, contrary to the facts, and inequitable and that the Court failed to consider the burden of proof that the judgment debtor had sufficient means to pay the decree amount and willfully refused to do so. He further submitted that instead, it allowed the execution petition without evidence or determination of the judgment debtor's intent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the trial Court ignored the testimony of the judgment debtor that he lacked means to discharge the decree and overlooked the fact that the decree holder's previous execution petition i.e., E.P.No.61 of 2OO9 was dismissed for default, rendering the current petition barred by the principle of res judicata. He contended that the trial Court tailed to properly apply relevant Supreme Court judgments, merely citing them without f ?, I 3 SKS,J C.R-P.No-721 of 2024 discussion, thereby rendering its order vitiated by illegalities. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this civil revision petition.

6. On the other hard, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment debtor has been evading arrest by providing false addresses, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the court's process. He further submitted that the arrest warrant of the Executing Court was initially sent to two addresses in Secunderabad, but the Bailiff was unable to locate the judgment debtor or 17 .O2.2024.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent noted that the subsequent affidavit of the Judgment Debtor, which claimed a different address, was false, as evidenced by the Bailiff s report on 06.06.2024, stating that the judgment debtor had vacated the premises long ago. He argued that this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court constitutes fraud ald abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, he urged the court to take necessary action and grant relief to the decree holder, directing the judgment debtor to provide his current address, and depositing a portion of the decree amount or furnishing third-party securit5r. d ?, I I 4 SKS,J C.P.P.No.721 of 2024

8. After considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the judgment debtor admitted to managing his wife's jewellery business, earrring a salary, and engaging in private chit business. The decree holder produced evidence i.e., Exs.Pl to P4 establishing means of judgment debtor to pay a substantial portion of the decree debt, which totaling to Rs.2,37,2OO/-. Despite this, J.Dr.No.1 faiied to provide sufficient evidence to disprove the claims of the decree ,t. .. holder, except for oral denials and producing order copies from earlier execution petitions.

9. Further, the earlier execution petition i.e., E.P.No.61 of 2009 was dismissed for default, not on merits, and therefore does not operate as res judicata, which requires a final decision on the merits of the case. Since the earlier petition was not adjudicated on its merits, the principle of res judicata does not bar the filing of the present execution petition. Furthermore, the present petition is based on new facts and evidence, including the admissions of J.Dr.No.l and the additional evidence of D.Hr., which were not considered in the earlier petition. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality in the { 5 SI(S,J C.R-P.No.72l of2024 order of the trial Court, and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated O2.O2.2O24 passed in E.P.No.86 of 2016 io O.S.No.129 of 20O5 by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs- Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. 1, I '1o Sd/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ANT REGISTRAR AS / /TRUECOPv / / SIIC'IION OFFICER l. 'fhc III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Coutt at SecunderaL-'ac1 i. On" Cc to Sri R.Rangairathari, Advocat". [-OIySl 3. o;; cC to sti Cl.rallaErinivas, Atlvocate IOPUCI ,1. l wo CD Copies. ]CK/gh c L 1 HIGII COUR'I DA1ED:04/02/202s ORDIIR CRP.No.721 of 2024 nt|-f .$ r CI3 rpn ilE t) (s i -j ,.,1 Dismissing thc C.R.P. \\,ithoLl[ (]osts b f