THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 3435 of 2009 Dated: 25.10.2010 Between: K.Sudheer Reddy, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND M.Rajamannar, Ananthapur and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 3435 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.07.2009 made in E.P.No.44 of 2008 in O.S.No.178 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur directing arrest of the revision petitioner for realisation of the decretal amount in O.S.No.178 of 2005. Revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.178 of 2005. The said suit filed by the 1st respondent herein was decreed by judgment dated 19.06.2007 making the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent herein/decree holder filed E.P.No.44 of 2008 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. to arrest the judgment debtors and sent them to civil prison for realisation of the decretal amount. It was alleged by the decree holder that though the judgment debtors possessed immovable properties which would be sufficient to discharge the E.P. amount, they were wilfully neglecting payment. Counters were filed by the Judgment Debtors denying the averments made by the decree holder. The decree holder got himself examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 was marked on his behalf. So far as the judgment debtors are concerned, R.Ws.1 and R.W.2 were examined. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Court below held that the decree holder had failed to establish that the judgment debtor No.1 got sufficient means to discharge the decretal amount and that he was wilfully neglecting to pay the same. Accordingly, the E.P. was dismissed against the judgment debtor No.1. So far as judgment debtor No.2/revision petitioner is concerned, having regard to Ex.P.1- Pahani for the Fasil 1417, which shows that he possessed Acs.6.56 cents of land, the Court below recorded a finding that the judgment debtor No.2 owned sufficient landed property which was sufficient to re-pay the decretal amount. It is also relevant to note that in the cross- examination, judgment debtor No.2 had categorically admitted that he possessed Acs.6.56 cents of land. Though he contended that due to continuous failure of crops, he was not getting any income and he had no cash to discharge the decretal amount, the Court below dis- believed the same on the ground that he failed to adduce any evidence to show that there were failure of crops for the past nine years in the area due to failure of monsoon. The Court below has also taken into consideration the specific plea of the decree holder that the judgment debtor No.2 was drawing Rs.2,50,000 per year out of the Acs.6.56 cents of land possessed by him. Having regard to the material available on record the finding recorded by the Court below that the judgment debtor No.2/revision petitioner had sufficient means to discharge the decretal amount, but he wilfully neglected and refused to pay the same cannot be held to be erroneous. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the decisions in POTHUNEEDI LAXMANA RAO V. KADASU MUNESWARA RAO[1] and E.N.SATYANARAYANA V. CHOWDAMMA[2] vehemently contended that the decree holder ought to have proceeded against the properties available for realisation of the decretal amount. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down in the said decisions has no application to the case on hand. In both the decisions cited above, the immovable property belonging to the judgment debtors was under attachment and the decree holder failed to proceed against the said properties for realisation of the decretal amount. The facts in the present case are entirely different and therefore the said decisions are not at all relevant. Hence, the order under revision cannot be found fault with. However, the revision petitioner had admittedly deposited half of the E.P. claim in compliance with the interim stay of arrest granted by this Court on 30.07.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment debtor No.2/revision petitioner is granted three months time for depositing the balance E.P. claim. In case the petitioner fails to comply with the same, the order under revision shall stand revive. So far as the amount, which is already in deposit the respondent/decree holder is at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 25.10.2010 KLP [1] 2005(4) ALT 444 [2] 2009(4) ALD 666