Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Jalemu Rajendra Prasad vs A on 5 December, 2025
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3395/2025
% 05.12.2025
# Sri Jalemu Rajendra Prasad.
......Petitioner
And:
$ Sri Basana Venkata Pedada Appala
Syam Kumar
....Respondent
!Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav representing
Sri P.Durga Prasad
^Counsel for the respondent : --
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2008-4-L.W.1068
2. 1998 (2) APLJ 238 (HC)
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3395/2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.12.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
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
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3395/2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel representing Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in EP.No.71 of 2023 arising out of O.S.No.329 of 2016. The suit was filed by the respondent/Decree Holder and the same was decreed.
3. In the EP pending in the Court of Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST cases - cum - XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, the plaintiff filed E.A.No.115 of 2025 under Section 55(3) & (4) of Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') to cancel the warrant issued against J.Dr or put the same in abeyance. The said prayer was made on the ground that the J.Dr had already filed IP.No.14 of 2025 under the provisions of Insolvency Act in which the plaintiff/D.Hr was also a party and in the said case I.A.No.124 of 2025 for protection was also filed which was pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
4. Learned Execution Court allowed the E.A.No.115 of 2025 under Section 55(3) & (4) CPC by the following order dated 24.07.2025:
".......
Counter not filed and no representation. Hence treated as no counter. Copy of the petition in I.P.No.14/2025 filed by the petitioner through memo. Heard the petitioner/J.Dr counsel. In view of filing of the IP 14/2025 by the petitioner wherein the D.Hr herein shown as 4th respondent, subsequent to passing of order in EP 71/2023 on 06.05.2023, this Court is inclined to kept the arrest warrant in a abeyance till one month, in order to obtain protection order from the insolvency court. Accordingly petition is allowed."
5. Thereafter on 24.09.2025, learned Court passed the following docket order:
"Since the protection order not filed, issue warrant against J.Dr on payment of process call on 17.10.2025."
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2025, the present CRP has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Execution Court ought not to have issued the warrant in view of the pendency of proceedings in IP, and in view of the provisions of Section 148 CPC it ought to have extended/enlarged the time, granted under the order dated 24.07.2025 to produce the protection order.
8. I have considered the aforesaid submission and perused the material on record.
9. Section 55 of CPC reads as under:
"55. Arrest and detention.--(1) A judgment-debtor may be arrested in execution of a decree at any hour and on any day, and shall, as soon as practicable, be brought before the Court, and his detention may be in the civil prison of the district in which the Court ordering the detention is situate, or, where such civil prison does not afford suitable accommodation, in any other place which the State Government may appoint for the detention of persons ordered by the Courts of such district to be detained: Provided, firstly, that, for the purpose of making an arrest under this section, no dwelling-house shall be entered after sunset and before sunrise:
Provided, secondly, that no outer door of a dwelling-house shall be broken open unless such dwelling house is in the occupancy of the judgment-debtor and he refuses or in any way prevents access thereto, but when the officer authorized to make the arrest has duly gained access to any dwelling-house, he may break open the door of any room in which he has reason to believe the judgment-debtor is to be found:
Provided, thirdly, that, if the room is in the actual occupancy of a woman who is not the judgment-debtor and who according to the customs of the country does not appear in public, the officer authorized to make the arrest shall give notice to her that she is at liberty to withdraw, and, after allowing a reasonable time for her to withdraw and giving her reasonable facility for withdrawing, may enter the room for the purpose of making the arrest:
Provided, fourthly, that, where the decree in execution of which a judgment-debtor is arrested, is a decree for the payment of money and the judgment-debtor pays the amount of the decree and the costs of the arrest to the officer arresting him, such officer shall at once release him.
(2) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any person or class of persons whose arrest might be attended with danger or inconvenience to the public shall not be liable to arrest in execution of a decree otherwise than in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf.
3) Where a judgment-debtor is arrested in execution of a decree for the payment of money and brought before the Court, the Court shall inform him that he may apply to be declared an insolvent, and that he 1 [may be discharged] if he has not committed any act of bad faith regarding the subject of the application and if he complies with the provisions of the law of insolvency for the time being in force. (4) Where a judgment-debtor expresses his intention to apply to be declared an insolvent and furnishes security, to the satisfaction of the Court, that he will within one month so apply, and that he will appear, when called upon, in any proceeding upon the application or upon the decree in execution of which he was arrested, the Court 2 [may release] him from arrest, and, if he fails so to apply and to appear, the Court may either direct the security to be realized or commit him to the civil prison in execution of the decree."
10. A perusal of Section 55(4) makes it evident that one of the conditions is that the judgment-debtor 'furnishes security, to the satisfaction of the Court'. So, the judgment debtor has to furnish the security to the satisfaction of the Court for release from arrest.
11. In R.Saravanam v. E.Raju 1 , the Madras High Court held that the provisions of Section 55 are mandatory. Referring to its previous judgment in K.Manokaran v. A.U.Subbannan {AIR 2002 Madras 340}, it was also held that adjudication order without a protection order does not prevent the judgment debtors arrest and it is the duty of the Court to require him to give security under Section 55(4) CPC.
12. Para Nos.22 & 23 in R.Saravanam (supra) reads as under:
"22. In AIR 2002 Madras 340 = 2002-2-L.W.513, (K.Manokaran Vs. A. U.Subbannan) this Court while dealing with the above said provisions, has held that there is nothing in the code which would indicate or compel the executing Court either to give an opportunity to the judgment debtor or the decree holder to adduce evidence to have a full-fledged enquiry and record its reasons in writing before passing an order of arrest against the judgment debtor. It is also stated that adjudication order without a protection order does not prevent the judgment debtors arrest and it is the duty of the Court to require him to give security under Section 55(4) CPC.
23. It is also stated that the executing Court is bound to inform the arrested judgment debtor that he may apply for insolvency, since the provisions of the Section 55 are mandatory. Even then, failure to inform does not invalidate the warrant of arrest and the pendency of the insolvency proceedings does not divest the Court of the power of committing the judgment debtor to prison. (Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 11th Edition 2006, Vol.1, Page 403)."
13. In M.S.Khan v. Karri Appa Rao2, the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that under Section 55(4) CPC it is necessary for the judgment-debtor to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court within one month and also file requisite application. It was also held that mere filing 1 2008-4-L.W.1068 2 1998 (2) APLJ 238 (HC) of memo before the executing Court that the applicant would file an IP., the same was not inconsonance with Section 55(4) of CPC.
14. Para Nos.10 & 11 in M.S.Khan (supra) reads as under:
"10. Sub-Section (4) of Section 55 of C.P.C. states that where a judgment-debtor expresses his intention to apply to be declared an insolvent and furnishes security, to the satisfaction of the Court, that he will within one month so apply, and that he will appear, when called upon, in any proceeding upon the application or upon the decree in execution of which he was arrested, the Court may release him from arrest, and, if he fails so to apply and to appear, the Court may either direct the security to be realised or commit him to the civil prison in execution of the decree.
11. In this case, though the petitioner had filed a memo before the executing Court that he would file an I.P., the same was not in consonance within the meaning of Sub-Section (4) of Section 55 of the C.P.C., for sub-section (4), it is necessary for the judgment-debtor to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court within one month and also file an application that he will appear, when called upon, in any proceeding upon the application or upon the decree in execution of which he was arrested, the Court may release him from arrest, and, if he fails to apply and to appear, the Court may either direct the security to be realised or commit him to the civil prison in execution of the decree."
15. On a specific query made to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submits that no such security was furnished by the J.Dr to the satisfaction of the Execution Court.
16. The docket order dated 24.07.2025, shows that the Execution Court has been liberal in passing the order dated 24.07.2025 granting one month time to produce the protection order, and it appears, without furnishing of the security by the petitioner/J.Dr. The protection order was not filed within the time allowed; so, the order dated 24.09.2025 was passed.
17. Section 148 of CPC reads as under:
"148. Enlargement of time.--Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, [not exceeding thirty days in total,] even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired."
18. There cannot be any dispute on the power of the Court to enlarge time subject to the provisions of Section 148 CPC, but the party must show bona fide grounds for the enlargement of time, which is in the judicious discretion of the Court and cannot be claimed as of right. Further, on a specific query made, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any application for enlargement of time under Section 148 CPC was not filed before the Execution Court. Be that as it may, grant of time under Section 55 CPC or enlargement under Section 148 CPC for doing an act under Section 55, cannot be without furnishing security for the decreetal amount to the satisfaction of the Execution Court.
19. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will furnish an adequate security before the learned Execution Court.
20. In view of the aforesaid statement made before the Court, and considering that most valuable right of a person of personal liberty is involved, though finding no illegality in the impugned order of the Execution Court and so, without interfering with the same, the Court is granting as a last opportunity to the Judgment Debtor to furnish security to the satisfaction of the learned Execution Court for the EP amount, within a period of three (03) weeks, in terms of Section 55 CPC.
21. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, however providing that only for a period of three (03) weeks to enable the petitioner to furnish security, the impugned order shall remain in abeyance. On expiry of such period, the Execution Court shall proceed further, as per law.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Dated: 05.12.2025 Note: LR copy be marked B/o.
AG 162 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3395/2025 Dated: 05.12.2025 Note: LR copy be marked B/o.
AG