1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), challenging the order dated 25.06.2026 passed in E.A.No.10 of 2026 in E.P.No.37 of 2018 in O.S.No.159 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Armoor, Nizamabad District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein/ plaintiff instituted a suit vide O.S.No.159 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Nizamabad, at Armoor seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.4,07,850/-, together with interest, costs and other reliefs. The learned trial Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 07.11.2017, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff initiated execution proceedings vide E.P.No.37 of 2018 in O.S.No.159 of 2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Armoor, under Order XXI, Rule 37 of the CPC, seeking issuance of a warrant of arrest against the petitioner/Judgment Debtor and his detention in civil prison stating that the petitioner failed to satisfy the decree. The learned Executing Court vide order dated 02.05.2025, allowed the E.P.No.37 of 2018 and issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner/Judgment Debtor under Order XXI, Rule 37 of CPC. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed E.A.No.10 of 2026 under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to stay the execution proceedings and cancel the warrant of arrest issued against him. The learned executing Court, vide order dated 25.06.2026, dismissed the said application. Questioning the validity and legality of the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that mere failure or default on the part of the petitioner in satisfying the decretal amount, by itself, cannot be construed as a willful refusal or deliberate default so as to subject him to the coercive process of arrest and detention in civil prison. It is submitted that the exercise of power under Section 51 read with Order XXI Rule 37 C.P.C. is not automatic and can be resorted to only upon the executing Court recording its satisfaction, based on cogent material, that the judgment debtor has the means to satisfy the decree and, despite possessing such means, has willfully failed, neglected, or refused to discharge the decretal liability. Learned counsel submitted that the executing Court, without properly evaluating the evidence on record, erroneously proceeded on the unsubstantiated assertions made by the respondent/decree holder that the petitioner owns Acs.10.00 of land, a tractor, and receives remittances from his sons abroad. It is contended that an order directing arrest directly infringes upon personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore the statutory procedure must be strictly adhered to. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jolly George Verghese and another v. The Bank of Cochin (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 470) and of this Court in Pankerla Devuni Venkataiah v. Merugu Ramesh (2025 (3) ALT 807 (TS) = CRP No.854/2025 dated 04.04.2025). It is further argued that the petitioner is aged about 60 years, is engaged in manual labour, and suffers from chronic age-related ailments as established by the medical record, and therefore, the learned executing Court ought to have exercised its discretion and set aside the warrant of arrest.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ decree holder contended that the petitioner has been consistently adopting dilatory tactics with the sole object of protracting the execution proceedings and frustrating the respondent from reaping the fruits of a decree lawfully obtained in his favour long back i.e, on 07.11.2017. It is submitted that the execution proceedings initiated in the year 2018 vide E.P.No.37 of 2018 have been dragged on for nearly eight years solely due to repeated and frivolous objections raised by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that during the enquiry in the execution petition, the executing Court duly examined PW.1 and RW.1, wherein the petitioner as RW.1 admitted that he was earning an income of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month and that his two sons were gainfully employed in Dubai. It is contended that despite having sufficient income and the capacity to pay, the petitioner has not deposited even a single rupee towards the decretal liability. He further submitted that the executing Court complied with the procedure under Order XXI Rules 37 and 40 C.P.C. and that the medical record produced by the petitioner does not show any serious or incapacitating disease. It is further submitted that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. is limited in scope and cannot be exercised to reappreciate findings of fact when the executing Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with law. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and having perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present revision petition has to be examined in the backdrop of the prolonged course of the execution proceedings. The suit for recovery of money, after full-fledged contest, came to be decreed in favour of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 07.11.2017. The petitioner neither preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree nor made any attempt to satisfy the decretal debt. Consequently, the respondent filed E.P.No.37 of 2018 seeking to realize the decretal amount. Despite the execution petition having been instituted in the year 2018, the decree holder has been unable to realize the decretal amount even after the lapse of several years, primarily due to successive applications and obstructive tactics adopted by the petitioner. The record reveals that before passing the order dated 02.05.2025 issuing the warrant of arrest in E.P.No.37 of 2018, the executing Court duly complied with the statutory procedure contemplated under Order XXI Rules 37 and 40 C.P.C. by issuing notice to the petitioner, conducting an enquiry, and recording the evidence of the decree holder as PW.1 and the judgment debtor as RW.1. In his cross-examination, the petitioner herein categorically admitted that he earns an income of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month and that his two sons are employed in Dubai. Though the petitioner claimed that his relationship with his sons is not cordial, he failed to adduce any corroborative evidence to substantiate the same. Having admitted an independent monthly earning capacity and being supported by family resources, the petitioner failed to pay or deposit even a small fraction of the decretal debt over the span of eight years.

6. While it is true that mere inability to pay an amount under a money decree does not automatically warrant civil imprisonment, the conduct of the judgment debtor throughout the execution proceedings is a decisive factor in determining whether the non-payment is a result of bona fide indigence or willful noncompliance and deliberate evasion of the court order. In the present case, the petitioner had taken selfcontradictory stands before the executing Court. On the one hand, he pleaded utter poverty and asserted that he had no means whatsoever to satisfy the decree. On the other hand, he sought to resist the execution on the premise that the decree holder ought to have proceeded against his tangible and immovable properties, while simultaneously failing to place any details or particulars of such properties on record. As rightly observed by the executing Court, in the absence of any disclosure or proof of tangible assets by the judgment debtor, the decree holder was left with no other alternative but to pursue execution through the mode of arrest and detention.

7. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jolly George Verghese’s case (supra) and the judgment of this Court in Pankerla Devuni Venkataiah’s case (supra) does not come to the aid of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Pankerla Devuni Venkataiah’s case (supra), the trial Court had straightaway ordered detention without conducting the mandatory enquiry under Rule 40 of Order XXI C.P.C. and without recording any finding on means. In the present case, a full-fledged enquiry was conducted wherein the earning capacity of the petitioner was elicited and established. Similarly, while Jolly George Verghese’s case (supra) shields a truly indigent debtor who has suffered sudden misfortune from being incarcerated, it does not confer a blanket license upon a judgment debtor possessed of regular income and family support to deliberately flout a judicial decree that has attained finality. The safeguards under Section 51 C.P.C. cannot be exploited as an instrument to render judicial decrees toothless or illusory.

8. Furthermore, the medical prescription dated 06.07.2026 produced by the petitioner merely reflects treatment for general weakness and common ailments, and does not demonstrate that the petitioner is suffering from any severe or incapacitating illness that prevents him from discharging his legal liability. The plea that the petitioner intends to institute insolvency proceedings was also raised as an afterthought only to interdict the execution of the warrant of arrest. The executing Court, after meticulously evaluating the conduct of the petitioner, his admitted income, and the prolonged pendency of the execution proceedings, arrived at a well-reasoned conclusion that the petitioner has willfully neglected to satisfy the decree.

9. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 C.P.C. is limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate forum to re-appreciate findings of fact recorded by the Court below, unless the order under challenge suffers from patent illegality, lack of jurisdiction, or material irregularity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such jurisdictional defect or perversity in the order passed by the executing Court. The impugned order dated 25.06.2026 passed in E.A.No.10 of 2026 by the learned executing Court is based on proper appreciation of the facts and governing law, and does not call for any interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 25.06.2026 passed in E.A.No.10 of 2026 in E.P.No.37 of 2018 in O.S.No.159 of 2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Armoor. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.