Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/3752/2025 of CHIGURUPATI RAVENDRA BABU Vs KANAPARTHI NAGARANI on 25 December 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3752/2025 Between: 1. CHIGURUPATI RAVENDRA BABU, S/O.
APHC010691382025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3752/2025
Between:
1. CHIGURUPATI RAVENDRA BABU, S/O. REDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, RIO. CHENNUR VILLAGE, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. KANAPARTHI NAGARANI, W/O. LATE KANPARTHI VENKATA
RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. CHENNUR VILLAGE, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. KANPARTHI ADITHYA, S/O. KANAPARTHI VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O. CHENNUR VILLAGE, PEDANA
MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. KANAPARTHI AKHIL, S/O. KANAPARTHI VENKATA RATNAM, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. CHENNUR VILLAGE, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. KANAPARTHI SAROJINI, W/O. LATE KANAPARTHI BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7-69, YELLAMARU POST, PEDAPARUPUDI MANDAL, KRISHNA 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 tobegs to present the above Revision Petition in this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Order dt 09-12-2025 in E.A.No.1067 of 2025 in E.A.No.4 of 2023 in E.P.No.19 of 2017 in MVOP.No.76 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, for the following among other
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 to suspend the operation of the Order dt: 09-12-2025 in E.A.No.1067 of 2025 in E.A.No.4 of 2023 in E.P.No.19 of 2017 in MVOP.No.76 of 2010 on the file of the court of Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, pending disposal of the above Revision in this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GURU VARA PRASAD TALARI
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3752 OF 2025
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:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Aggrieved by the order dt.09.12.2025 passed by the executing court, the learned Principal District Judge Court at Machilipatnam, whereby the Court granted police aid to execute warrant against the J.Dr. for realization of the decreetal amount, the present civil revision petition is filed.
3. The petitioner is the J.Dr. in E.P. No.19/2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam. A decree was passed in M.V.O.P. No.76 of 2010 against the J.Dr. As the J.Dr. failed to pay the award amount, the D.Hr. has filed execution petition for arrest of the J.Dr. which was allowed. Thereafter the present petition was filed seeking police aid to execute the warrant against the J.Dr.
4. The said order is now questioned on the ground that police aid is not given to the Court Ameen who has to execute the warrant and the police aid is given to the D.Hr., for executing the warrant. In fact, even though in para 5 of the order it is stated that police are directed to extend aid to the D.Hr., for execution of the warrant, it is very clearly stated at the end of para 4 that it is appropriate to grant police aid to the Court Ameen to execute the warrant. Therefore, it is obvious that the intention of the Court is to grant police aid to the Court Ameen to execute warrant. The order is to be read as a whole and not in isolation. If a holistic view is taken, the intention of the executing court is clear that the police aid was given to the Court Ameen to execute the warrant. Therefore, the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the J.Dr., to assail the impugned order is devoid of merit. Barring the said contention, there is no other ground raised challenging the impugned order. Therefore, this Court finds no valid ground to entertain the civil revision petition to interfere with the impugned order.
5. When the award was passed and when it became final, it is for the J.Dr., to satisfy the award and pay the award amount. Even when the execution petition was filed, he did not satisfy the award. Therefore, the executing court was constrained to issue warrant of arrest. There is nothing wrong in the order of the executing court. So the civil revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs.
6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. _______________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Dt.26.12.2025 BV