THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1187 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.189 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, for recovery of amount on the basis of the promissory note. The suit was decreed after contest on 22-04-2008. Since the respondent did not pay the decretal amount, he filed E.P.No.153 of 2008 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 CPC alleging that though the respondent possessed adequate means, he did not comply with the decree. The respondent filed counter. He stated that though he is employed as Carpenter in Nagarjuna Sugar Canal Project and is drawing a salary of about Rs.20,000/-, he has to incur expenditure for studies of his children and treatment of his mother, and that if reasonable time is given, he would honour the decree. The executing court recorded the evidence of the parties and dismissed the E.P. through order, dated 28-02-2011. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent is served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance. It is a matter of record that the respondent suffered a decree for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. He did not carry the matter in appeal and the decree became final. The decree was not honoured and the petitioner filed E.P. under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 CPC. The respondent filed counter without disputing much of the averments, but only pleading for time. Before the trial court, the petitioner deposed as PW.1 and she filed Ex.A-1-pay-slip of the respondent for the month of July, 2009. The respondent deposed as RW.1 but did not file any documents. The question is as to whether the judgment debtor has adequate means to honour the decree, but failed to do so, is no doubt, very difficult to answer. The burden squarely rests upon decree holder particularly in an application filed under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC. However, if it is shown that the judgment debtor failed to pay the decretal amount in spite of having substantial income, then it can be said to be a wilful act. In the instant case, the respondent is employed in Nagarjuna Sugar Canal Project and is drawing about Rs.20,000/-. Had there been any bonafides on his part, either he would have asked for instalments or would have taken other steps. Once he permitted the decree to become final, he cannot avoid it. If undue indulgence is shown to such persons, the credibility of the legal system would suffer. The decree, which the plaintiff, obtained by paying court fee and incurring huge expenditure would virtually be reduced to a document of no consequence. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that mere failure cannot be taken as a ground to cause arrest of a judgment debtor. However, if it emerges that the judgment debtor has adequate means, but lacks the intention to honour the decree, the law should be permitted to take its course. The lack of bonafides on the part of the respondent is evident from the fact that during pendency of the present E.P. he got a collusive decree and got an order of attachment of his salary. The Executing Court ought to have taken these aspects into account, instead of dismissing the E.P. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. In exercise of power under Article 227, this court directs that the respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month to the credit of the suit on or before 10th of every commencing month from January, 2012 till the decree is complied with. In case, he commits default of payment of instalments for two consecutive months, it is shall be open to the petitioner to seek arrest of the respondent in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 05-12-2011 Prv