THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 524 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order in E.P.No.8 of 2010 in O.S.No.29 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, ordering the arrest of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor in the above execution petition is the revision petitioner. 2. In the earlier Civil Revision Petition No.523 of 2011 connecting E.P.No.7 of 2010 in O.S.No.210 of 2007 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, between the same parties, this Court has passed an order for making an enquiry. The facts in this case are also similar. The decree-holder has obtained the decree for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note and sought for the arrest of the judgment-debtor and after considering the material on record, the lower Court has ordered the arrest of the judgment-debtor. 3. According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, the order of the lower Court suffers from infirmity since the mandatory requirement of proof of means was not established and the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the judgment-debtor was earning Rs.1,000/- per day by doing fruit business and the inference drawn by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge is not correct. Evidently, in order to sustain an order of arrest in execution of the decree, it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the judgment-debtor has got sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and intentionally avoiding to pay the same in order to defeat and delay the decretal debt. In this case, except the evidence of the decree-holder and the judgment- debtor, there is no other evidence on record. When the factum of doing fruit business is disputed and also when the owning of the property as alleged by the decree-holder is also disputed, it is for the decree- holder to adduce acceptable evidence to prove the same apart from his own statement before the Court. The decree-holder can adduce evidence of the neighbours whereas the judgment-debtor was doing business and can produce the documents with regard to the title to the property. In fact, the judgment-debtor is also not able to explain as to what was the need for borrowing of such huge amount if it is not for any other purpose except business. 4. All these facts can only be appreciated by taking further evidence on both sides and therefore, the order of the lower Court being not supported by sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion about the means of the judgment-debtor is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower court for giving opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence about the means of the judgment-debtor and the intentional delay in discharge of the decretal debt. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the application within three months. Accordingly, Civil Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 09-06-2011. INL