THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3761 of 2010 27.8.2010 Between: Narina Tatalu, S/o.Rama Rao …Petitioner and Velagala Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy, represented by General Power of Attorney Holder, Kovvuri Yugandhara Raja Reddy, S/o.Gangireddy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3761 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.821 of 2003 for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,000/-. The suit was decreed. The respondent then filed E.P.No.99 of 2006 for arrest of the Judgment Debtor (J.Dr) – petitioner herein. It was opposed. Therefore, the matter was enquired into. The Decree Holder (D.Hr) examined two witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A3. Considering the evidence on record, the objections of the petitioner were overruled and the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, directed issue of arrest warrant against the petitioner herein, aggrieved by which, the present civil revision petition is filed. The counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that the petitioner was not given opportunity to contest the matter and that the evidence of petitioner was abruptly closed. He nextly contends that D.Hr has option to proceed against the property of the petitioner and instead of doing so he straightaway sought for arrest of J.Dr, which is not sustainable in law. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner owns land admeasuring Acs.2.00 in R.S.No.30/2 and also house bearing door No.12/106 in an extent of 559 Sq.yards in R.S.No.39/6 in Ward No.9 of Tanuku. He also alleged that petitioner has properties worth about Rs.50,00,000/- and that in spite of sufficient means, he failed to discharge the decretal amount. Petitioner contested inter alia taking a plea that due to intervention of elders, the matter was settled for an amount of Rs.60,000/-, that the well wishers of J.Dr paid the said amount but the D.Hr declined to issue receipt in spite of requests by the elders with mala fide intention to cause wrongful loss to petitioner and that J.Dr need not pay any amount to the D.Hr. During the enquiry, the General Power of Attorney of D.Hr deposed as P.W.1 and marked attested copy of sale deed executed by N.Padmavathi and K.Tulasiratnam in favour of petitioner as Ex.A1, and attested copy of sale deed executed by K.Krishnamurthy in favour of petitioner as Ex.A2. The evidence of D.Hr was closed on 04.6.2010. Thereafter, the matter was posted on five occasions and the J.Dr was not ready to proceed with the matter. On 16.7.2010, the matter was adjourned to 19.7.2010. On that day, both the parties were heard and orders were pronounced. The certified photocopy of the proceedings sheet is placed before this Court. A perusal of the same would show that the matter was adjourned at the instance of petitioner at least on eight occasions. On every time, he took adjournment for one reason or the other. Secondly, in the counter affidavit filed in the E.P. petitioner did not deny the allegation of D.Hr that J.Dr had sufficient means. What all he pleaded is that amount was paid by the well-wishers on behalf of petitioner and that D.Hr refused to give receipt. When the allegation that J.Dr had means to pay the decretal amount stands admitted in the counter affidavit and sufficient opportunity was granted to J.Dr to produce his witnesses, it would be uncharitable to hold that the Court below did not afford reasonable opportunity to petitioner. A Civil Court is not expected to wait for the party to proceedings to get ready, even after grant of number of adjournments. The civil revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) August 27, 2010. YS