HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P.No. 1404 of 2010 Date: 27-09-2010 Between: Adapala Vijaya Kumar Reddy ……….. Petitioner and Yeddula Chandrasekhar Reddy ………. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P.No. 1404 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 21-01-2010 passed in E.P.No.250 of 2008 in O.S.No.248 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Pottisreeramulu Nellore. 2. It appears, the respondent laid suit in O.S.No.248 of 2007 for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed after full trial on 19- 08-2008 as prayed for. Since the decree was not satisfied, the respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No.194 of 2008 for attachment of movable properties and E.P.No.219 of 2008 for attachment of immovable properties. However, according to the petitioner, during the pendency of those E.Ps, the present E.P.No.250 of 2008 was filed under Order 21 Rule 37 of C.P.C. for realization of the decretal amount of Rs.7,17,058/- by way of sending the judgment debtor to civil prison. 3. On behalf of the decree holder, PW-1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner-judgment debtor, he examined himself as RW-1, however no documents were marked. 4. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Execution Court came to the conclusion that the judgment debtor is having the fiduciary capacity to discharge the decretal amount in lump sum. Therefore, ordered for his arrest. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that having filed E.P.No.194 of 2008 for attachment of movable properties and E.P.No.219 of 2008 for attachment of immovable properties, there is no necessity for the decree holder to file the present E.P.No.250 of 2008. Unless and until the earlier E.Ps were disposed of, the financial position of the petitioner-judgment debtor would not be made clear. Therefore, the Execution Court has grossly erred in taking up E.P.No.250 of 2008 and disposing of the same. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order passed by the Execution Court and submitted that no ground is made out for interfering with the order passed by the Execution Court. 7. During the pendency of this Revision Petition, an interim order was passed on 29-03-2010 granting interim stay subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the decretal amount including interest and costs. As the said order was not complied with, this Court vacated the interim order on 09-06-2010 and directed the lower Court to proceed with the matter as per law. 8. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice the finding recorded by the Execution Court, which reads as follows: “J) The decree was passed on 19-8-2008. The J.Dr has admitted that he has settled the debt of his creditor Suresh Babu when he filed suit O.S.No.134/2007 in this Court of law. J.Dr has also admitted that as he went on settling the credits of some of his credits, he settled the credit of Suresh Babu. J.Dr has admitted that he has borrowed money. He purchased car and duplex house. But his share in such house was transferred in favour of his wife for consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- on 06-12-2006. According to J.Dr he does not know whether his family members own Ac.26-73 cents at Jetla Kondur village of Manubolu Mandal. But he has denied that his name is shown as cultivator in the adangals pertaining to the said land during fasli 1415 to 1417. he has also denied that he is getting income worth Rs.12,00,000/- per annum from his lands. But from the evidence of J.Dr, it can be inferred that he and his family members namely his wife and his wife’s mother who was looking after his wife and having profits from Ac.26-00 of land held by the family members of J.Dr. He has denied the suggestion that he owns property worth Rs.3 crores. Presently his son is working in America. k) Setting the debt of Suresh babu and other creditors after filing of the suits in the year 2007 shows that J.Dr has means to pay the amount of decree or some substantial part thereof even after passing of decree. He has got fiduciary capacity to discharge the credit of the D.Hr. It is proved by the D.Hr. His evidence and the evidence of J.Dr and the documents show that J.Dr has removed part of his property after institution of the present suit and that he has neglected to pay the decretal amount to the D.Hr since the date of decree and that he has fiduciary capacity to pay the decretal amount. J.Dr is enjoying the property which is alienated in the name of his wife and his mother in law and nearer family members. J.Dr. has intention to discharge his debts. But due to filing of number of suits by his creditors, he delayed making repayments. He has admitted about filing of number of suits by him against his debtors for recovery of more than 25 lakhs. D.Hr has also filed Ex.P.7/2008 for attachment of valuable car of J.D and E.P.219/2008 for sale of residential house of J.Dr. J.Dr has alienated those properties in favour of his wife; O.S.No.250/2008 is filed for declaration that such transactions are not valid. Such suit was filed by the General Body of Creditors. The creditors have also filed I.P.No.22/2007 on the file of this Court to adjudicate the J.Dr as insolvent. J.Dr has admitted in such proceeding that he has paid 3 lakh under a receipt to one of his creditors. J.Dr has not chosen to file Insolvency petition to adjudicate him as an insolvent. Because he has been enjoying the property which stands in the name of his family members, he has not filed such insolvency petition. It also shows that the J.Dr is having fiduciary capacity to discharge the decretal amount in lumpsum. This point is answered accordingly in favour of petitioner.” 9. From the above facts, it is seen that the substantial properties held by the judgment debtor were alienated in favour of his wife and mother-in-law, which shows that those properties were transferred only with a view to avoid execution of the decrees passed by the competent Court. Therefore, the Revision Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date: 27-09-2010 YCR