Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/902/2026 of Kaki Venkata Narasimha Prasada Rao, Vs M/s. Shriram Finance Limited, on 1 April 2026
C.R.P.No.902 of 2026) APHC010104442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3 2 9 9] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 902/2026 Between: 1. KAKI
(RNT,J
C.R.P.No.902 of 2026)
APHC010104442026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 902/2026
Between:
1. KAKI
VENKATA
NARASIMHA
PRASADA
RAO,,
S/O
SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT MIG- 186, DWARAKAPUDI, VUDA, PHASE-VII, KURMANNAPLEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. M/S SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM, RECENTLY
THE SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED
MERGED WITH SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LIMITED, AND
THE NAME OF THE NEW ENTITY IS SHRIRAM FINANCE
LIMITED,
REPRESENTED
BY
ITS
S.P.A.
HOLDER,
MD.
PARAVARISH, S/O. ISMAIL, MUSLIM, AGED 50 YEARS.
2. SANKAR
BUILDERS
AND
DEVELOPERS,
REP.,
BY
ITS
MANAGING
PARTNER
KAKI
SUJATHA,
W/O.
VENKATA
NARSIMHA PRASADA RAO, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT
FLAT NO.302, SUJATHA RESIDENCY, PHASE-II VUDA COLONY, KURMANAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 530043.
3. PENUMATSA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. GOVINDA
RAJU, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO 31-,58-40, HIG- 47 -7 PHASE KURMANAPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. NAMALA SATYA NAGENDRA KUMAR, . SO. SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 3082-82-1/303, ROAD
(RNT,J
C.R.P.No.902 of 2026)
NO.4A, TIRUMALA NAGAR, VADLAPUDI, VISAKHAPATNAM.
5. GENERAL
MANAGER,
(FINANCE
AND
ACCOUNTS),
VISAKHAPATNAM STEELPLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to call for the records and set aside the Order dated 21.01.2026 passed in E.P. No. 784/2023 in A.A. No. 395 of 2020., on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings against the petitioner/JDr in E.P. No. 784/2023 in A.A. No. 395 of 2020., on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
(RNT,J
C.R.P.No.902 of 2026)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), by the petitioner/judgment debtor No.4, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2026 passed in E.P. No.784 of 2023 in A.A. No.395 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.
2. Heard Sri Karukola Simhachalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material available on record.
3. The petitioner is the judgment debtor No.4 in E.P. No.784 of 2023 filed by the 1st respondent/decree holder under Order 21 Rule 48 read with Section 51 CPC, seeking attachment of the salaries of the petitioner/judgment debtor along with judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3. By the order under challenge dated 21.01.2026, the Execution Petition was allowed with costs and a warrant of attachment was issued against the salaries of respondent Nos.2 to 4/judgment debtors with certain directions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the decree holder had already sought attachment of the property of judgment debtor No.1 in the arbitral proceedings, he is not proceeding against the said judgment debtor and instead is proceeding against the present petitioner.
(RNT,J C.R.P.No.902 of 2026)
5. Copy of the arbitral award is on record. On perusal, it is evident that the arbitral award has been passed against respondent Nos.1 to 4/judgment debtors jointly and severally.
6. It is well settled that the decree holder is entitled to proceed against any one or more of the judgment debtors for realization of the decretal amount, if the award/decree is joint and several.
7. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree holder ought to have proceeded only against judgment debtor No.1 and not against the present petitioner cannot be accepted. The decree holder cannot be compelled to exhaust remedies against one judgment debtor before proceeding against the other judgment debtors, when the liability of the judgment debtors is joint and several.
8. The learned executing Court has rightly appreciated the scope of the decree and has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law in allowing the Execution Petition and in issuing warrant of attachment.
9. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. No case for interference is made out in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
(RNT,J C.R.P.No.902 of 2026)
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
Date : 02.04.2026.
RPD.
(RNT,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
(DISMISSED)
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 902 OF 2026
Date : 02.04.2026
RPD.