HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.3175 OF 2007 Dt.18.11.2010 Between: Vantaku Appala Naidu ..Petitioner And Vantaku Appala Naidu ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.3175 OF 2007 ORDER: Petitioner herein is the judgment debtor, who suffered a decree in O.S.No.45 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, by decree dated 17.10.2004 for payment of a sum of Rs.1,11,276/-. As the said amount was not paid, the respondent decree holder filed E.P.No.2 of 2005 for recovery of sum of Rs.1,24,499/- by way of attachment of sale of the properties of the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C., and give notice under Section 55 C.P.C., to recover the decretal amount for payment of the same to the decree holder and in default issue warrant to send him to civil prison. The judgment debtor filed counter denying all the allegations made in the E.P., stating that he has no business, no movable or immovable properties and he has no means to pay the decretal amount. After considering the said contentions the court below came to the conclusion that the judgment debtor with a view to screen the properties has alienated the property to Vantaku Prasad and thereby did not allow the decree holder to proceed against the properties attached and for sale. The court below has arrived at a conclusion that the conduct of the judgment debtor in selling away the attached property is nothing but to evade the payment of the decree amount and the judgment debtor has no intention to pay the decree amount and not allowing the decree holder to proceed against the properties and therefore he is liable to be arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Gudiwada Munemma v. Jawardhal[1] stating that when the judgment debtor is having sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount and yet neglected to pay the decretal amount, the judgment debtor cannot be arrested without proceeding against the said properties. In the instant case, the petitioner has denied about possessing of any movable or immovable properties and in fact with a view to defraud the decree the attached property was sold away. Therefore, the said decision has absolutely no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 18.11.2010 kpr [1] 2007 (3) ALD (NOC) 55