THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2506 OF 2007 DATED: 01-07-2010 Between: Gude Sridhar Chowdary. ..... PETITIONER And Chevuri Brahmanandam. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 26-04-2007, in E.P.No.42 of 2006 in O.S.No.648 of 2002 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, wherein the said petition was allowed and warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Respondent herein filed O.S.No.648 of 2002 for recovery of the debt due under the suit promissory note. The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.2,58,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. besides costs. Respondent-decree-holder filed E.P.No.42 of 2006 for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,03,176/- due under the decree by seeking arrest of the petitioner-judgment-debtor on the ground that in spite of having sufficient means the judgment-debtor was deliberately evading and neglecting to pay the same. 4. According to the decree-holder, the judgment- debtor is carrying on business and is having movable and immovable property. Though the judgment-debtor filed a counter denying the same, he has not adduced any evidence. The decree-holder examined himself as P.W.1 and testified that the judgment-debtor is doing contract business and is earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum and is having lands and house property at Kanchikacherla. The executing Court on being satisfied that the judgment- debtor was having sufficient means but was intentionally neglecting to pay the decree debt, ordered issuance of warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtor. Aggrieved by the same, judgment-debtor filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. While admitting the Civil Revision Petition, this Court by order, dated 08-08-2008, granted interim stay subject to the condition that the petitioner-judgment-debtor deposits a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with suit costs within four weeks and further directed that in default the order of stay shall stand vacated automatically. 6. Learned counsel for the decree-holder submits that the judgment-debtor has not complied with the said interim order and he has not paid the amount as directed and therefore, the interim stay granted on 08-08-2008 already stood vacated. 7. Even otherwise, the impugned order, which is based on proper appreciation of the evidence of the decree- holder available on record and there being no contra evidence adduced by the judgment-debtor, does not call for any interference. There are absolutely no merits in the Civil Revision Petition. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st July, 2010. Tsy