IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2723 OF 2009 Between: R.V. Kumar and another .....PETITIONERS AND K. T. Prasad ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2723 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "C.P.C.") is directed against the order, dated 07.05.2009, in O.E.P.No.105 of 2007 in O.S.No.276 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C., seeking arrest of petitioner No.1/judgment debtor No.1 in default of payment of E.P. amount of Rs.91,318/- as principal and interest, was allowed granting two months' time to petitioner No.1/judgment debtor No.1 to discharge the E.P. amount from the date of that order and in default, order of arrest will be effected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners filed a petition, under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, along with the written statement and the same was heard on 07.05.2009 and no orders have been passed; that order of arrest against petitioner No.1 herein is without any evidence and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. The provision as to issuance of show-cause notice before ordering arrest and detention of judgment debtor is salutary in nature and has been enacted with a view to afford protection to honest judgment debtors and to extend them an opportunity to comply with the decree. Ultimately, the purpose of arrest and detention of a judgment debtor in civil prison is not to punish him for any crime but to enable the decree holder to realize the fruits of a decree passed in his favour. In considering an application under Order XXI Rule 37 C.P.C., two requirements have to be fulfilled by the decree holder, namely, (1) the judgment debtor has means to pay the decreetal amount and (2) the judgment debtor is wantonly and willfully avoiding to pay the decreetal amount. If these two requirements are satisfied, then an arrest warrant against the judgment debtor can be issued. 4. To substantiate the case of the respondent/decree holder, he himself was examined as PW.1. His evidence is very clear that petitioner No.1 is doing seasonal business and getting Rs.10,000/- per month and also having an extent of Ac.6-00 of land and getting Rs.4,00,000/- per annum; and that petitioner No.1 is also having a house and he is the owner of a fair price shop. 5. Practically, the evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that petitioner No.1/judgment debtor No.1 has got means to pay the decreetal amount. The decree is for Rs.91,318/-. That amount could have been paid by petitioner No.1 from the income, which he was getting from various properties. So, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be inferred that petitioner No.1 is not paying the amount wantonly or willfully though he has means to pay the decreetal amount. Hence, the trial Court rightly ordered arrest of petitioner No.1. That order needs no interference by this Court. However, the order of the trial Court is kept under abeyance for a period of two months from today. In the meantime, petitioner No.1/judgment debtor No.1 has to pay the remaining decreetal amount and if both the parties agree for any compromise, that shall be given effect to. 6. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J January 27, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2723 OF 2009 January 27, 2011