The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by a judgment debtor challenging an arrest warrant issued in an execution proceeding. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari ruled that a Coordinate Bench cannot unsettle the finality attached to a previous order based on a plea that was available to the petitioner at the time of the earlier adjudication but was not raised.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Yellapu Varaha Venkata Siva Satyanarayana @ Srinu, is the judgment debtor in Original Suit No. 132 of 2013. The suit was decreed against him on December 6, 2016, by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, for a principal amount of Rs. 6,50,000 with interest.
Subsequently, the decree holder filed Execution Petition (E.P.) No. 25 of 2019. On April 21, 2022, the Executing Court ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), holding that he possessed sufficient means but was willfully neglecting to pay the decree amount.
The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court via C.R.P. No. 932 of 2022. This earlier petition was disposed of on January 31, 2025, with the Court granting the petitioner nine months to pay the balance amount. The Court had directed: “In default, the trial Court can proceed with the order dated 21.04.2022 for arrest of petitioner without further reference to this Court.”
Following the petitioner’s failure to comply with the order dated January 31, 2025, the Executing Court passed an order on October 31, 2025, issuing a warrant of arrest. The petitioner then filed the present Civil Revision Petition (No. 3211 of 2025) challenging this latest order.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Rajasekhar, representing Sri K. N. P. Vamsikrishna, submitted that the petitioner had been declared an insolvent in I.P. No. 3 of 2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, vide a final order dated February 1, 2024. The counsel argued that under Section 28 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, the order of adjudication relates back to the date of the presentation of the petition.
It was contended that the copy of the insolvency order was filed before the Executing Court but was not considered. The counsel admitted that the insolvency order dated February 1, 2024, was not brought to the notice of the High Court during the proceedings of the previous C.R.P. No. 932 of 2022, which was decided on January 31, 2025.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari declined to interfere with the Executing Court’s order, noting that the insolvency order existed prior to the disposal of the previous revision petition but was not brought to the Court’s attention.
The Court observed:
“This Court is of the view that if the petitioner was declared as insolvent, the same could have been pleaded in the earlier civil revision petition No.932 of 2022 before passing of the final order dated 31.01.2025, but the same was not done. The plea which was available to be raised was not raised in CRP.No.932 of 2022.”
Justice Tilhari emphasized that the Executing Court was bound by the High Court’s previous directions. Regarding the petitioner’s reliance on the Provincial Insolvency Act to challenge the pending execution, the Court held that the principle of finality prevented the Coordinate Bench from revisiting the matter.
“The principle of finality attached to the judgment dated 31.01.2025, cannot be unsettled by this Coordinate Bench on the ground available at the time of judgment dated 31.01.2025 which was not agitated at that time,” the Court stated.
Decision The High Court found no illegality in the Executing Court’s order dated October 31, 2025, as it was passed in compliance with the High Court’s earlier directions upon the petitioner’s default.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Tilhari ruled:
“As observed above, I do not find any illegality in the order under challenge in the present civil revision petition. The present civil revision petition is therefore dismissed.”
The Court, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to “take such other steps, as may be open under law and as may be advised” regarding the order passed in the previous revision petition.
Case Information
- Case Title: Yellapu Varaha Venkata Siva Satyanarayana @ Srinu vs. Silaparasetty Veera Venkata Siva Satyanarayabna @ Bobby
- Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 3211 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
