THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4996 of 2007 Date of Order: 16-11-2010 Between: A.Rupakaladhara Reddy ..Petitioner and M/s. Margadarshi Chit Fund Ltd., Satteaalli Road, Narasaraopet, Guntur District rep. by its Manager, T.S.C. Bose and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4996 of 2007 Oral order: This revision is directed against the orders of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in allowing E.P.No.164 of 2006 in O.S.No.20 of 2004 dated 05-10-2007 ordering arrest warrant under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment debtor for realization of the E.P. amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor No.7 contends that 1st respondent/decree holder should establish that judgment debtor would have sufficient means to pay the decretal amount but intentionally evading to pay the said amount. Pursuant to the arrest warrant the petitioner was brought before the Court and enquiry was conducted and ordered E.P. without specifying the period of detention. The decree holder, who was examined as P.W.1, categorically stated that the petitioner/judgment debtor No.7 is a businessman and doing business in screen-printing works and also hotel business. No suggestion was made to P.W.1 that the judgment debtor is not doing business in screen-printing works, except stating that the decree holder has not filed any document to show that the judgment debtor is doing business in screen printing works. P.W.1 further stated that the judgment debtor is doing hotel business. Judgment debtor himself was examined as R.W.1. He admitted that he used to do job works in printing and after some time he sustained loss in his work due to mismanagement and incurred heavy debts to others and in the process he executed demand promissory note in the name of others who lend money to him for doing business. In view of the same, it is for the judgment debtor to show that he sustained loss in business and stopped the same when he admitted that he paid income tax till 2003. By the time he executed guarantee bond in O.S.No.120 of 2004 he was income tax assessee since 1999, it is for him to file necessary documents about his incurring loss in the business as per the assessment orders. When the defendant once admitted that he is doing business and incurred loss, burden always lies on him to file document showing that he sustained loss in the business and he is not paying income tax and stopped his business. Holding so the learned Judge dismissed the I.A. The impugned order passed by the court below does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 16-11-2010 Murthy