THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 383 of 2010 Dated: 11.03.2010 Between: G.Ramanjaneyulu … Petitioner And G.Jayamma … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 383 of 2010 O R D E R : The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.212 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapur, who suffered a money decree in O.S.NO.58 of 2004. The execution petition filed by the respondent herein/decree holder was allowed by order dated 31.12.2009 directing arrest of the Judgment Debtor and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Heard both sides. It is not in dispute that the suit was decreed on 25.04.2007 and even the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner was dismissed on 16.04.2009. Pursuant thereto, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.212 of 2009 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. for realisation of the decretal amount by arrest of the judgment debtor and sending him to civil prison. The revision petitioner/judgment debtor filed a counter stating that he was aged about 61 years and that he did not possess any property either movable or immovable. It was also specifically pleaded that he had no ready means to maintain himself and had no capacity to pay the decretal amount and therefore, the execution petition for arrest was liable to be dismissed. The decree holder got herself examined as P.W.1. and the execution petition was posted on 30.12.2009 for the evidence of the Judgment Debtor. The Revision Petitioner sates that though his affidavit in chief was ready, the same could not be filed on 30.12.2009 as his counsel was engaged in another Court. Since his evidence was closed on 30.12.2009, on the very next day i.e. 31.12.2009 the Judgment Debtor/Revision Petitioner filed an application to reopen the execution petition for his evidence. However, the said application was returned on the ground that the execution petition was already allowed. Hence, the present revision petition against the order dated 31.12.2009 in E.P.No.212 of 2009. Apparently, the petitioner’s application to reopen the execution petition which was filed on 31.12.2009 i.e. the very next day, was not entertained since by that time, the execution petition was already allowed. Having regard to the specific stand taken by the Judgment Debtor/Revision Petitioner in his counter that he had no sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, I am of the opinion that the matter requires consideration on merits. Particularly in view of the fact that the decree holder did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate her case and moreover, the Judgment Debtor filed the application to reopen the evidence on the very next day, the petitioner deserves an opportunity to oppose the execution petition by producing his evidence. In the circumstances, the Court below ought to have entertained the application of the Judgment Debtor and ought to have reopened the execution petition for consideration on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.12.2009 in E.P.No.212 of 2009 is hereby set aside and the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to pass appropriate orders afresh in E.P.No.212 of 2009 after permitting the Judgment Debtor to adduce evidence on his side and after hearing both the parties following due process of law. The Revision Petitioner shall appear before the Court below on 25.03.2010 to lead evidence on his side. It is open to the Court below either to receive his evidence on that day or to fix any other convenient date and the execution petition shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks thereafter. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 11.03.2010 Note: Issue C.C. by Monday. B/o KLP