THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.739 of 2008 30.10.2009 Between: Divi Satyanarayana, S/o.Subba Rao … Petitioner AND Pattapu Rama Krishna, S/o.Satyanarayana … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.739 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is Decree Holder (D.Hr) in small cause suit being S.C.No.17 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram. He filed E.P.No.119 of 2006 under Order XXI Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking arrest of Judgment Debtor (J.Dr) – respondent herein. The same was dismissed by the lower Court on 12.9.2007. Aggrieved by the same, present civil revision petition is filed. In his E.P., petitioner alleged that respondent was owner of land admeasuring Acs.0.30 in R.S.No.465/19 worth Rs.1,00,000/- and that he is also grazing 60 goats cost about Rs.1,20,000/-. It is also alleged that J.Dr has a house worth about Rs.4,00,000/-. These were denied by respondent. During the enquiry, D.Hr examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined another witness as P.W.2. J.Dr deposed as R.W.1. The J.Dr examined Village Revenue Officer and Village Secretary as R.W.2 and R.W.3 respectively. Considering the evidence, learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the E.P. holding that D.Hr failed to prove that J.Dr has means to pay the suit debt. Aggrieved by the same, present civil revision petition is filed. This Court heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent and also perused the material available on record. The D.Hr gave evidence as P.W.1. His evidence was not corroborated by P.W.2. Therefore, the allegations made by him that J.Dr has land, house and goats remained unproved. On the other hand, the evidence of J.Dr as R.W.1 is corroborated by R.W.2 Village Revenue Officer, who stated that respondent has no land or house. This was also corroborated by R.W.3 Village Secretary, who deposed that J.Dr is living in a thatched house. Learned Counsel for petitioner relied on the statement made by J.Dr in his cross-examination that he is grazing goats. From this, no inference can be drawn that he is owner of the goats. Therefore, on all probabilities, J.Dr had no means to pay decretal amount. In that view of the matter, the order of trial Court is unassailable. The civil revision petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) October 30, 2009 YS