HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.4108 of 2009 Dated 29-11-2010 Between: Poosarla Annaparaju @ Ramji. …Petitioner. And: Manda Sridevi. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.4108 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is judgment debtor who suffered money decree in O.S.No.219 of 2006 based on a pronote dated 10- 6-2004. The decree which was passed on 18-4-2008 is put to execution whereunder the petitioner/J.D.R. contested the E.P. to claim that he has no means to pay decretal amount. Evidence was let in by the Decree Holder as well as the Judgment Debtor by examining themselves as P.W.1 and R.W.1. The executing court, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/J.D.R. is having properties and has sufficient income but intentionally evaded to pay the decretal amount. Hence, the executing court directed his arrest in civil prison if the E.P. amount is not paid within 15 days. This revision is directed against the aforesaid order and by order of this Court dated 28-8-2009 while issuing notice on admission, interim stay of arrest of the petitioner was granted by this Court subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 1/3rd of the E.P. amount within three weeks from that day. The said order is said to have been complied with and the respondent Decree Holder was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the order of the executing court on merits is unsustainable as the petitioner/Judgment Debtor has really no means and it is not as if that he is the owner of the cinema theatre while in fact he is only one of the partners. Learned counsel for the respondent-Decree Holder submits that in the cross-examination as well as the demeanour of the Judgment Debtor while deposing as R.W.1,it was noticed by the Court below, which speaks of the satisfaction of the executing Court that the witness was not answering the questions by avoiding to give proper answers, and while answering the income, the J.D.R. was intentionally pleading ignorance. After considering the submissions on either side and the findings reached under the impugned order, the executing court was not satisfied with the plea of the petitioner in view of the evidence on record that his two sons are working as Engineers at Hyderabad and have been frequently visiting the United States. It was also stated that the petitioner is facing a specific performance suit filed by one Pasumarthi Mallik, regarding one of the properties where he is supposed to get sufficient money from the said agreement holder. In addition to that, the trial court was satisfied that the petitioner owns a cinema hall and other immovable assets. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner owns only a share in the said properties, a decree in this case is about Rs.3,00,000/- and odd can be satisfied by him, therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, for payment of balance of 2/3rd of the E.P. amount, the petitioner is granted time till the end of February, 2011 in one or more installments by depositing the said amount to the credit of executing court. In the event of default on the part of the petitioner in paying the amount, the executing court is free to execute the decree in accordance with law. If petitioner deposits the amount as permitted herein, the Respondent/Decree Holder is permitted to withdraw the same. Subject to the above, C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 29-11-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.4108 of 2009 Dated 29-11-2010