IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2906 OF 2009 Between: Tananki Satyanarayana .....PETITIONER AND Smt. Mullapudi Sathi Sakkubai ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2906 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 06.05.2009, in E.P.No.13 of 2007 in O.S.No.975 of 2000, on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The execution petition is filed under Order XXI Rule 37 C.P.C., to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner/judgment debtor calling upon him to appear before the Court and show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison. In pursuance of said notice petitioner engaged an advocate and filed the counter. After hearing both sides, the petition was allowed and a warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the petitioner on payment of process. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the decretal amount in view of the fact that he sustained heavy loss in the cultivation; that the respondent/decree holder had already obtained attachment of the properties of the petitioner/judgment debtor before the judgment and he can as well proceed against the properties and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner is having means to pay the decretal amount, but he is willfully avoiding to pay the amount; that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the petitioner deposited half of the decretal amount, which shows that the judgment debtor has sufficient means to discharge the decretal amount and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. The evidence of the PW.1, who is decree holder, would go to show that the petitioner/judgment debtor is having Ac.15-00 of land, three tobacco barns and is getting Rs.4,00,000/- per annum on his fields; that he also owns a house at Peddapuram apart from motorcycle, and that though the petitioner is having means to pay the decretal amount, he is deliberately and intentionally avoiding to pay the same. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner/judgment debtor is that his properties were already attached in several decrees including the decree in the present suit and so, nobody is coming forward to purchase his properties and he never wantonly neglected to pay the decretal amount to the respondent. He admitted that he is having one tractor. He also admitted that he is having Ac.6-40 cents of land in R.S.No.370 situated at Peddapuram Village, Gopalapuram Mandal and another Ac.6-00 of land by the side of the above said land. He also admitted that he is having Ac.3-50 cents of land in R.S.No.333 situated at Vellachintalagudem and a bore well. So, he is enjoying the income from the property of Ac.15-00 of land for more than five years. Therefore, the evidence would go to show that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and it can be inferred from the evidence that the intention of the petitioner is to drag on the proceedings. Otherwise, the petitioner would have discharged the decretal amount. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is kept under abeyance for a period of six weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall pay the remaining decretal amount to the respondent. For any reason, if the petitioner fails to pay the remaining decretal amount to the respondent within six weeks from today, the impugned order passed by the executing Court shall be given effect to. 6. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 11, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2906 OF 2009 November 11, 2010