THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.4474/2009 Date of Order: 26-8-2011 Between: Gogineni Venkateswara Rao ..Petitioner and Chinda Chittimma @ Tulasamma ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.4474/2009 Oral order: The judgment debtor in EP No.35/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda filed this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise the order dt. 7-8-2009 passed in EP No.35/2008 in OS No.47/2005. The petitioner/Judgment Debtor/defendant herein will hereinafter referred to “the judgment debtor” and the respondent/decree holder/plaintiff herein will be referred to as “the decree holder”. For due execution of the decree obtained in OS No.47/2005, the decree holder filed EP No.35/2008 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure for arrest of the judgment debtor to realize the decretal amount, stating that the judgment debtor is having landed property, house and shops and is also having capacity to pay the decretal amount and in spite of having capacity to pay the decretal amount, the judgment debtor has not discharged the decretal amount. To substantiate his contention, the decree holder filed Ex.A-1 ie., paper publication in EP No.87/2007 in OS No.180/2005 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, which shows that one acre of land of the judgment debtor was attached in execution of the decree in another suit, which fact has been denied by the judgment debtor. Further, in the cross-examination, the judgment debtor admitted that he is having three rooms, but it is residential house with RCC roof and it is situated at Kosuru. The judgment debtor admitted that he is having three shops at Kosuru centre and he cannot say whether its cost is more than six lakhs as suggested. In the cross-examination, it was elicited from the judgment debtor that he is having three rings to his fingers and out of them two rings are gold and one is silver. Taking into consideration, the executing court found that in spite the judgment debtor is having sufficient means to discharge the suit debt, he is evading payment of suit debt and ordered arrest of the judgment debtor. Learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor contends that it is for the decree holder to establish that the judgment debtor is having sufficient means and failed to discharge the suit debt. The contention so advanced, though attractive, cannot be accepted as the same can be proved either by adducing evidence, oral or documentary, or eliciting from the judgment debtor by way of cross- examination. Admittedly, in the present case, it has been elicited from the cross-examination of the judgment debtor by the decree holder about the earnings of the judgment debtor. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible in the impugned order passed by the executing court warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.26-8-2011 kmr