Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
P.Purushotham Reddy vs Mallana Lakshmi Narayana on 1 May, 2026
APHC010567512023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3332]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:THE
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2902/2023
Along with
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2601 & 2694 of 2023
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2902 of 2023
Between:
1. P.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, S/O. P. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NU.31
D.NU.31-
90/16-1-319T
319T BLOCK, KOALA INDLU, PUNGANUR TOWN AND
MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. R MUNWAR BASHA, S/O. MAZEED SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 65
YEARS, MUSLIM, R/O. D.NO.19
D.NO.19-103,
103, SUBEDAR STREET,
PUNGANUR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
2. S SABJAN, S/O. SHAJAHAN, AGE 46 YEARS, MUSLIM, R/O. D.NO.
17-343
343 NVR STREET, MADANAPALLE TOWN AND MANDAL,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
3. S NASEEMA, W/O. KHADAR BASHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
MUSLIM R/O. D.NO.5/123/1, SOMAL BUS STAND, SOMALA POST
AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
4. S NOOR AHMAD, S/O. ABDUL SATTAR SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, MUSLIM, R/O. D.NO.20
D.NO.20-95,
95, KOTHAPETA, PUNGANUR,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
5. T GURU PRASAD, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM SETTY, AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS, R/O. SRINIVASA SUPER MARKET, M.B.T. ROAD, KOTHA.
INDLU, PUNGANUR TOWN AND MANDAL
MANDAL,, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
2
6. R PURUSHOTHAM, , S/O. R. GANGULAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47
YEARS, R/O. MEKANAJAMANAPALLI VILLAGE, VANAMALADINNE
POST, PUNGANUR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
7. B NAGARAJA REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-49, YANAMSAMANAPALLI VILLAGE,
KAGATHI POST, CHOWDEPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
8. P VENKATA REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O. CHADALLA VILLAGE AND POST, PUNGANUR MANDAL,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
9. B DEVANAND GANDHI, S/O. B. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS, R/O.D.NO.15-95, VINAYAKA. NAGAR, KIIUNALAPUR,
KADAPA DISTRICT, AP.
10. KURAVA DEVAMMA, W/O. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O. AMARA KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, PUDIPATLA POST,
CHOWDEPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
11. C R RAJA REDDY, S/O.PAPI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O. D.NO.28-49-10, KOTHAPETA (BACKSIDE OF TRAVELERS
BUNGLOW), PUNGANUR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.
12. K RAJA REDDY, S/O. CHENGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O. ARIKELA POST, RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.
13. M BHASKAR REDDY, S/O. M. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49
YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 31-43-4-1, KOTHA INDLU, PUNGANUR TOWN
AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (4 TO 8 AND 10 TO 13 ARE
NOT NECESSARY PARTIES
...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 this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this
Hon'ble Court against the Decree and Order in I.A.No. 26 of 2018 in I.P.No. 7
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
3
of 2018, dated 13-10-2023 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge,
Punganur, Chittoor District
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 grant interim protection against the execution of warrants of arrest obtained
by the respondents 2 and 3 in E.P.No.30/2016 and E.P.No.29/2016 in
I.P.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur,
Chittoor District, pending disposal of the Revision petition before this
Hon'ble Court and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N PRAMOD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. AYESHA AZMA S
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2601 of 2023
Between:
1. SRI POTHU PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, S/O. P. NARAYAN.A REDDY,
AGED 43 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.16-633-3-3, NEAR DSP BUNGLOW,
RAMULA GUDI STREET, MADANAPALLE TOWN AND MANDAL,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SHAIK SABJAN, S/o. Shaik Shahjahan, Aged 41 years, R/o. D.No.17-
343, NVR Street, Madanapalle Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.
...RESPONDENT
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
4
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 to being aggrieved of the orders passed in E.P.No.29/2016, in
OS.No.118/,2014, order Dt.-03- 10-2023, of Principal Senior Civil Judge
Madanapalle
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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
grant stay of the operation of the orders passed in E.P.29/2016 in
O.S.No.118/2014, dated. 03-10-2023 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge
Madanapalle and pass
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
may be pleased to extending the interim orders in C.R.P.No. 2601 of 2023
granted on 07-10-2023 which was being extended from time to time till 13-08-
2024, until further orders in the interest of justice, and pass
IA NO: 2 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
may be pleased to order extend the interim orders granted in CRP.No.2601 of
2023, granted earlier on 01.08.2025 which was being extended from time to
time till 15.08.2025, therefore the interim - orders may be extended until
further orders until the disposal of the petition 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 grant extending the interim orders granted in CRP.No.2601 of
2024, on 07.10.2023 which was being extended from time to time till
20.11.2025, pending disposal of the C.R.P. before this Hon'ble Court, and
pass
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
5
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N PRAMOD
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. AYESHA AZMA S
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2694/2023
Between:
1. POTHU PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, S/O P. NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED 43 YEARS, R/O D.NO.16-633-3-3, NEAR DSP BUNGLOW,
RAMULA GUDI STREET, MADANAPALLE TOWN AND MANDAL,
CHITTOOR (ANNAMAYYA) DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SHAIK NASEEMA, W/o S. Khader Basha, aged about 42 yrs, R/o
D.No.5/123/1, Somala Bus Stand, Somala Post and Mandal, Chittoor
District
...RESPONDENT
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 to begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this
Hon'ble Court against the Docket order in E.P.No. 30 of 2016 in O.S.No. 1 of
2015, dated 3-10-2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil
judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor (Annamayya) District
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 grant stay of the operation of the orders passed in E.A.No. 116 of 2022 in
E.P.No.30 of 2016 in O.S.No.1 of 2015, dated 6-12-2022 on the file of the
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
6
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, pending disposal of the C.R.P.
before this Hon'ble Court, and pass
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
May be pleased to extending the interim orders in C.R.P.No. 2694 of 2023
granted on 04-11-2023 which was being extended from time to time till 15-10-
2024, until further orders in the interest of justice, 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
to order extending the interim orders granted in CRP.No.2694 of 2024,
granted on 04.11.2023 which was being extended from time to time till
20.11.2025, Pending disposal of the C.R.P. before this Hon'ble Court, and
pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N PRAMOD
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. AYESHA AZMA S
RESERVED ON 12.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON 01.05.2026
UPLOADED ON 01.05.2026
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
7
COMMON ORDER
(i) Civil Revision Petition vide CRP No.2902 of 2023 is filed questioning
the legality and correctness of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in
I.A.No.26 of 2018 in I.P.No.7 of 2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Punganur.
(ii) The Civil Revision Petition vide CRP No.2601 of 2023 is filed
questioning the legality and correctness of the Docket order dated 03.10.2023
passed in E.P.No.29 of 2016 in O.S.No.118 of 2014 by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
(iii) The Civil Revision Petition vide CRP No.2694 of 2023 is filed
questioning the legality and correctness of the Docket order dated 03.10.2023
passed in E.P.No.30 of 2016 in O.S.No.1 of 2015 by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
(iv) The Docket orders dated 03.10.2023 passed in E.P.Nos.29 & 30 of
2016 would show that since no interim protection orders were passed in
I.A.No.26 of 2018 in I.P.No.7 of 2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Punganur, arrest warrants were issued against the J.Dr.with police aid.
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
8
(v) Since all the Civil Revision Petitions are connected with I.A.No.26 of
2018 in I.P.No.7 of 2018, all of them were consolidated and were heard
together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner is the petitioner and respondents are respondents in
I.P.No.7 of 2018.
3. The facts that led to filing of CRP No.2902 of 2023, in brief, are that:
(i) The petitioner filed I.P.No.7 of 2018 under Section 10 of the
Provincial Insolvency Act to adjudicate him as insolvent. Pending disposal of
the said petition, the petitioner filed I.A.No.26 of 2018 under section 31 of the
Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’) to issue
protection order directing respondents not to threaten and not to take steps
for arrest of petitioner in execution petitions till disposal of the insolvency
petition, contending that some of the respondents filed suits against him and
respondent no.1 filed E.P.No.17 of 2016 and respondent no.2 filed E.P.No. 29
of 2016, respondent no.3 filed E.P.No.30 of 2016 for his arrest, whereas
respondent no.13 filed C.C.No.349 of 2015 under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act with an intention to harass him.
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
9
(ii) The respondent nos.1 to 3 filed counters contending that the
present petition is filed only with a view to escape the arrest and discharge
the genuine debts and defraud the decree holders from realizing the fruits of
the decree. It is further contended that section 31 of the Act only comes in to
play only after declaring the petitioner as insolvent.
(iii) The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the counsel on record and
upon perusing the material available on record, dismissed the petition holding
that protection under Section 31 of the Act can be granted only after
adjudicating the petitioner as insolvent.
(iv) The said dismissal order was assailed in CRP No.2902 of 2023.
4. The facts that led to filing of CRP Nos.2601 & 2694 of 2023, in brief,
are that, for realisation of the decretal amount, the Decree holders filed
Execution Petitions vide E.P.Nos.29 & 30 of 2016 for arrest of the Judgment
Debtor. The Judgment Debtor/ petitioner filed counter stating that he filed
I.P.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Punganur and also filed I.A.No.26 of 2018 seeking protection order wherein
interim orders of protection were passed which were in force till 07.03.2022
and thereafter the said interim protection order was not extended and hence
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
10
the Judgment Debtor filed petition seeking extension of interim protection
order and also filed I.A.No.52 of 2022 for grant of stay of all further
proceedings in the Execution Petition till disposal of I.P.No.7 of 2018 and the
same is posted to 18.11.2022. Thereafter, the Judgment Debtor, questioning
the arrest warrant issued against him in the subject E.P., filed Civil Revision
Petition vide C.R.P.No.2228 of 2023 and the same was disposed of with a
direction to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District to
consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A.No.26 of 2018 in I.P.No.7 of
2018, if pending within a period of two (02) weeks from the date copy of the
order is produced before the learned trial Court. The impugned docket orders,
dated 03.10.2023 show that since the time granted by this Court to the Senior
Civil Judge, Punganur for disposal of interim protection petition in I.A.No.26 of
2018 vide orders in CRP was elapsed, there is no reason to give the relief of
not to arrest the J.D.R. Accordingly, ordered issuance of fresh arrest warrant
against the J.Dr. with police aid on payment of process.
5.The said docket orders have been questioned in CRP Nos.2601 &
2694 of 2023.
6. Heard Sri N.Pamod, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Ms.Ayesha Azma S., learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
11
7. Sri N.Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the
contents of the petition filed before the trial Court would contend that the
learned trial Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction conferred upon by sections
23 and 31 of the Act in refusing to grant protection against the arrest and
detention of the petitioner to Civil imprisonment and thus the order of the trial
Court is vitiated. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge
misinterpreted the scope and width of section 55(3) of the Civil Procedure
Code and erroneously narrowed it down to mean that until the petitioner is
arrested and brought before the Court, no order of protection shall be issued.
He would further contend that unless the protection is granted, the
respondents may obtain warrants and arrest the petitioner which would
render the application filed by the petitioner otiose. He would further contend
that the dismissal orders passed by the learned trial Judge are perverse and
are liable to be set aside and accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision
Petition.
8. On the other hand, Ms.Ayesha Azma S., learned counsel for
respondent nos.1 to 3 while reiterating the contents of the counter filed
before the trial Court would contend that protection under Section 31 of the
Act only comes into play after declaring the petitioner as an insolvent and
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
12
pending disposal of the insolvency petition, the Courts cannot grant protection
under Section 31 of the Act and at the most the petitioner can seek protection
under Section 23 of the Act whenever he was arrested in execution of
warrant. She would further contend that the learned trial Judge analysed the
scope of section 31 of the Act in proper perspective and rightly dismissed the
application holding that Section 31 of the Act can be passed only after
adjudicating the petitioner as insolvent and the said well considered order
does not require interference of this Court and accordingly, prayed to dismiss
the Civil Revision Petitions.
9. Perused the material available on record and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
10. The learned trial Judge placed reliance on the decision of this Court
in Sanapala Narasamma and others vs. Mallana Lakshmi Narayana
and others1, wherein reliance was placed on the decision of High Court of
Madras in Sinnaswamy Chettiar vs. Aligi Goundan 2 in dismissing the
petition.
1
. 1995(5) ALT 755
2
. AIR 1924 Madras 983
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
13
11. In Sinnaswamy Chettiar (supra 2) the High Court of Madras held
that unless the judgment debtor is declared as insolvent, protection under
Section 31 cannot be passed in favour of the petitioner and before
adjudication, an insolvent has no right to be protected under Section 23
unless he is arrested in execution of a decree. Accordingly, the learned trial
Judge dismissed the petition covered under the impugned orders on similar
lines.
12. In Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Goundan and others 3 ,
while considering Section 5 of the Act, of course without referring to the
judgment in Sinnaswamy Chettiar case, supra, a Division Bench has held that
the District Court has inherent powers under Section 5 of the Act to pass
protection order even before adjudication, which is as follows:
“……….. In our opinion, the District Judge has inherent powers under
section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to grant the appellant the
protection he has claimed.”
13. In Ramnad District Central Co-operative Bank, through its
Secretary v. Official Receiver of Ramnad District, Ramnad at Madura4
another Division Bench of High Court of Madras while referring to Sections 4
3
. AIR 1925 Madras 170
4
. AIR 1954 Madras 12
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
14
and 5 of the Act and the power of the Insolvency Court to decide about the
questions arising in insolvency and by correlating the corresponding provisions
in English Act relating to the Law of Bankruptcy, has held that there is a
discretion vested in the Court in the matter of granting injunction and it
cannot be said that there is an absolute prohibition against the grant of
injunction. By referring to an observation of Cotton L.J., In re Hart (1880) 15
Ch.D 223(C), where an order of injunction was refused, still the learned Judge
has observed that the inherent powers of the Court in granting injunction in
suitable cases are available, the Division Bench has held as follows:
“10. It is seen from these observations that there is a discretion vested
in the Court in the matter granting injunctions and not that there is an
absolute prohibition against the grant of injunction. Though in ‘Ex parte
Bayly, In re Hart’, 1880 (15) Ch. D. 223 (C), the Court refused to grant the
injunction, still observations in the judgment of Cotton L.J. at pages 226
and 227 do not negative the power inherent in the Court to issue the
injunction in suitable cases. At page 227 we have the following statement
by the learned Judge:
“Under such circumstances if the Court saw that there was a reasonable
case to be tried at the hearing, it would interfere and keep the property
‘in medio’ until at the hearing the rights of the parties could be
decided.”
11. It is, therefore, clear that it cannot be said as an abstract proposition
of law that the Insolvency Court in England never had that power. In India
also there are judicial pronouncements as well as views of text books
writers which do show the existence of such a power. Paragraph 74, at
page 56 of the Law of Insolvency by D.P. Mulla is to the following effect:
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 202315
“Injunction. Though the Court will not restrain a mortgagee or other
secured creditor in the exercise of his legal remedies under Section 18
(sic.) of the Act, it may, it seems, restrain him under Order 39, Rule 1,
C.P.C., 1908, if there are substantial grounds for impeaching its title.”
14. In Ramalingam vs. Radha5, Full Bench of High Court of Madras
held that, therefore, a combined reading of the provisions as a whole,
especially taking note of Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, we are of the considered
view that there is no bar for the insolvency Court in exercising its inherent
powers of granting interim orders before the adjudication process, as a matter
of prevention.
15. At para-23 of the judgment, the Full Bench held thus:
“23. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter and in the
light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we have no
hesitation in holding that even before final adjudication, the Insolvency
Court has inherent power to pass interim orders, of course, such
interim order shall be passed depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each individual case and to meet the ends of justice.
The reference is answered accordingly. Consequently, with due
respect, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the
learned Judges of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan, AIR 1924 Mad. 893 and the
same stands over-ruled. We further subscribe the views expressed by
the Division Bench in the case of Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana
Goundan, AIR 1925 Mad. 170; and Ramnad District Central Co-
operative Bank, through its Secretary v. Official Receiver of Ramnad
District, Ramnad at Madurai, AIR 1954 Mad.12…….”
5
.2011 SCC OnLine Mad 888
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
16
16. The observations made by Full Bench clearly state that the view
expressed in Sinnaswami Chiettiar, which was relied on by a learned Judge of
this Court in Sanapala Narasamma and others(supra 1) has been
overruled. The Full Bench further held that even before final adjudication, the
Insolvency Court has inherent power to pass interim orders, of course, such
interim order shall be passed depending upon the facts and circumstances of
each individual case and to meet the ends of justice
17. In view of the above, since the decision relied on by the learned
trial Judge was based on an overruled decision and further in view of the
observations made by Full Bench of the Madras High Court that interim order
has to be passed basing on facts and circumstances of each case, this Court
deems it proper to set aside the order impugned in CRP No.2902 of 2023 and
remand the matter to trial Court for adjudication of the matter in light of the
observations made by Full Bench of Madras High Court that insolvency Court
is empowered to pass interim protection during pendency of the insolvency
petition.
18. Regarding CRP Nos.2601 & 2694 of 2023, the material discloses
that aggrieved by issuance of warrant of arrest the Judgment Debtor filed
Civil Revision Petition vide CRP No.2228 of 2023 and the same was disposed
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
17
of by this Court vide orders dated 11.09.2023. For expediency, the relevant
portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:
“7. From perusal of the docket orders annexed, this Court finds that the
interim protection continued upto 07.03.2022. The matter was reserved for
orders fixing 30.03.2022 by order dated 22.03.2022 and on 30.03.2022, the
matter was suo motu reopened, but while reopening suo motu the
proceedings, the interim protection was not extended. On the previous dates
07.03.2022, 16.03.2022 and 22.03.2022 also the interim protection was not
extended. Since then more than 1 ½ years has passed. Learned Senior
Advocate also submitted that in O.S.No.1 of 2015 as also in some proceedings
under the Negotiable Instructions Act, some decree/orders have been passed
for which the execution proceedings are pending.
8. Consequently, it would not be appropriate for this Court to extend the
interim protection which was previously granted by the learned Trial Court of
which there is no extension since long. However, it is for the Trial Court to
consider the petitioner’s application I.A.No.26 of 2018, if still pending and
pass appropriate orders taking into consideration, the overall fact situated
with due opportunity to the parties concerned.
9. Therefore, without observing anything on the merits of the contention, if
the interim protection required or did not require extension, this Civil Revision
Petition is being disposed of finally with direction to the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District to consider and pass appropriate orders on
the petitoner’s I.A.No.26 of 2018 in I.P.No.07 of 2018, if pending,
expeditiously, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date copy of this
order is produced before the learned Trial Court, with due opportunity of
hearing to the respondents therein.
10. This order however would not come in the way of final disposal of
I.P.No.07 of 2018 in accordance with law if there is no other legal
impediment.
11. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of finally with the above
observations and directions.”
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
18
19. The record discloses that pursuant to the above orders passed in
CRP No.2228 of 2023, the Judgment Debtor filed a memo before the
Executing Court with the following:
“It is submitted that the Honourable High Court while disposing CRP
No.2228/2023 has given directions in I.A.No.26/2018 in I.P.No.7/2018 filed by
the JDR on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur against order of arrest
to dispose of the IA within the period of 2 weeks from the date of placing of
the order.
In view of the directions given in I.A.No.26/2018 in I.P.No.7/2018 this
Honourable Court may be pleased not to issue fresh orders for the arrest of
the JDR till the disposal of the I.A.No.26/2018 in I.P.No.7/2018 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, in the interest of justice.”
20. Thereupon, the impugned docket orders came to be passed. The
relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:
“On perusing the record, the CRP 2228/2023 filed by the J.Dr. herein
relates to the I.P.proceedings and there is no restrain order passed
stalling this E.P. proceedings. Moreover, the period granted to the Senior
Civil Judge, Punganur for disposal of the Interim Protection petition in
I.A.No.26/2018 is also elapsed. So, this Court finds no reason to give the
relief of being not arrested to the J.Dr. Hence, the memo filed by the
learned counsel for the J.Dr. is not considered.”
21. As rightly held by the executing Court, no restraint order stalling the
E.P.proceedings was passed in CRP No.2228 of 2023 and that CRP was filed
praying this Court to extend the interim order passed in I.A.No.26 of 2018
from 22.03.2022 till determination of the said application.
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
19
22. Even though, no restraint order was passed stalling the
E.P.proceedings, it is pertinent to note that the said CRP was filed seeking
extension of interim protection order granted in I.A.No.26 of 2018 from being
arrested pursuant to the orders of the executing Court and this Court directed
the Insolvency Court to dispose of the application within two (02) weeks from
date when the said order is placed before the said Court.
23. Non disposal of I.A.No.26 of 2018 by the Insolvency Court within
the time frame stipulated by this Court cannot be to the disadvantage of the
Judgement Debtor, unless he by his wilful conduct cause any deterrence to
disposal of the said application. More particularly, when this Court in CRP
directed the Insolvency Court to dispose of the application but did not direct
the petitioner to obtain extension of orders by fixing a time frame.
24. It is relevant here to note that the Constitutional Courts have
consistently emphasized that courts must exercise extreme caution when
dealing with matters involving personal liberty, even in civil proceedings, as
the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is foundational
and cannot be lightly curtailed. While personal liberty is primarily protected
against State action in criminal cases, civil courts are also bound to ensure
that procedural safeguards are not violated, as even civil imprisonment or
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
20
restrictions can result in “punitive content” before a final adjudication of guilt
or liability.
25. In view of the observations made in CRP No.2902 of 2023, setting
aside the orders impugned thereon and remanding the matter directing the
Insolvency Court to pass orders afresh, the docket orders dated 03.10.2023
passed in E.P.No.29 of 2016 in O.S.No.118 of 2014 and E.P.No.30 of 2016 in
O.S.No.1 of 2025 on the file the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Madanapalle, are kept in abeyance till final adjudication of I.A.No.26 of
2018 in I.P.No.7 of 2018.
26. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.2902 of 2023 is
partly allowed setting aside the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.26 of
2018 in I.P.No.7 of 2018. The matter is remanded to learned Senior Civil
Judge, Punganur for fresh adjudication of the petition within a period of six
(06) weeks from the date on which copy of this order is produced before the
trial Court. The petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the
petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
RC,J
CRP Nos.2902, 2601 & 2694 of 2023
21
27. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition Nos.2601 & 2694 of 2023 are
disposed of and the orders dated 03.10.2023 are kept in abeyance pending
the final adjudication of I.A.No.26 of 2018 in I.P.No.7 of 2018 by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Punganur. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
1st May, 2026. RR
Note: L.R. copy be marked.
B/o
RR