THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2365 OF 2010 DATED 22ND MARCH, 2011 BETWEEN Vanipenta Venkataramana …Petitioner And Sadu Adi Narayana Reddy …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2365 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner in E.P.No.18 of 2009, being the decree holder in O.S.No.9 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, filed the present Civil Revision Petition. As per the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2008 in the said suit, the judgment debtor was liable to pay to the decree holder/petitioner a sum of Rs.1,96,000/- together with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization. Seeking execution of the said decree, the decree holder filed E.P.No.18 of 2009 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, and sought arrest of the judgment debtor and his detention in civil prison. Thereupon, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, called upon the judgment debtor to show cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison. Upon considering the material placed on record, the Executing Court passed order dated 17.02.2010 dismissing the execution petition on the ground that the judgment debtor was not having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount or a substantial portion thereof. The decree holder assails the said order in the present Civil Revision Petition. The order passed by the Executing Court reflects that the decree holder was not in a position to demonstrate before the Court that the judgment debtor was possessed of any other means except his salary. The salary certificate, Ex.B.2, disclosed that the judgment debtor was drawing a salary of Rs.20,180/- per month. However, it is surprising to note that the deductions therefrom are to the tune of Rs.19,010/- leaving barely a little over Rs.1,000/- for the judgment debtor to meet his monthly expenses. This should have been sufficient indication that the judgment debtor was possessed of other sources of income. However, the Executing Court failed to draw such an inference. Needless to mention, under Order 21, Rule 37 CPC, it is for the judgment debtor to show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison for his failure to honour the Court’s decree. Therefore, notwithstanding the inability of the decree holder/petitioner to demonstrate with proof the other sources of income available to the judgment debtor, the Executing Court was not barred from drawing an adverse inference from the deductions effected from the judgment debtor’s salary. Apart from this aspect, as per Section 60(1) proviso (i) CPC, the salary of the judgment debtor to the extent of Rs.1,000/- along with 2/3rd of the balance amount was exempt from attachment. That would have left a sum of over Rs.6,000/- available for attachment, of which Rs.2,000/- was already under attachment. The finding of the Executing Court that this sum though available for attachment cannot be taken into account as the same had to be utilized for meeting the educational expenses of the judgment debtor’s children and his loan liabilities, cannot be sustained as it is not in accordance with the scheme of the provision. The exemption of the stipulated amount of salary under the provision is for the express purpose of permitting the judgment debtor to meet such expenses. Therefore, the amount which was legally available for attachment, after applying the exemption, ought not to have been excluded on the ground that it was needed to meet the monthly expenses of the judgment debtor. Viewed thus, the approach adopted by the Executing Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 21, Rule 37 CPC is erroneous. Having suffered a decree it is not open to the judgment debtor to lightly escape the rigors thereof by citing financial incapability without showing cause, as required under the provision, that he genuinely did not have the means to honour the decree. The order dated 17.02.2010 passed by the Executing Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2008 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the said Court for adjudication afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 22ND MARCH, 2011. VGSR/PGS