THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.180 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is judgment debtor in E.P.No.30 of 2008. The respondents-decree holders were awarded costs of Rs.33,023/- against the petitioner/judgment debtor in O.S.No.27 of 2000. The present E.P. was filed to recover the said amounts from the petitioner/judgment debtor. Before the Court below one of the decree holders was examined as P.W.1 and the judgment debtor examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 to B.5, which are primarily medical reports of the judgment debtor. The contention of the judgment debtor before the Court below was that he is aged person of 70 years suffering from diabetes and cancer and that he has fallen into difficulty and unable to raise the funds and as such the inability is not intentional but circumstantial. On the evidence led by the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor the Court below came to the conclusion that the judgment debtor himself admitted that he had raised the paddy and ground nut crops in the leased land and on account of failure of the crops he received insurance amount and further he is also to get compensation for the lands, which were acquired by the Government. Based on the above, the Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner/judgment debtor has sufficient means but he is intentionally evading to pay the decretal amount. Consequently, the Court below has found it to be a fit case to order arrest. The said order is questioned in this revision and this Court while issuing notice before admission on 22.07.2010 granted interim stay subject to condition of petitioner depositing Rs.15,000/- within a period of four weeks. Later, on 11.06.2010 the C.R.P. was admitted but as the interim order was not complied with the application for stay was dismissed by a detailed order dated 11.06.2010 where this Court refused to extend the time granted for compliance earlier. This Court, therefore, recorded that no attempt has been made by the petitioner to pull out the money for deposit of at least half of the costs and not satisfied with the bona fides of the petitioner, therefore, the said petition was dismissed. Today, when the revision petition is posted for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor made a very strenuous effort requesting this Court for extending indulgence and sympathy to the petitioner, who is shown as aged about 76 years in the cause title in the C.R.P. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree as to costs was itself not warranted and that he has advised the petitioner to take appropriate steps to question the said decree but the said proceedings have to be taken up before the lower appellate Court concerned against the said decree. So far as the present execution petition is concerned, the learned counsel relies upon the chief and cross-examination of P.W.1 to contend that the respondent/decree holder has failed to substantiate that the petitioner/judgment debtor has sufficient means and is evading to discharge the decree debt. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court reported in Kalidindi Rama Raju Vs., Vijaya Bank (Nationalised), Bhimavaram, W.G.District[1], Pandugayala Subbarayadu Vs., Kattamuri Sri Krishna[2] and E.N.Satyanarayana Vs., Chowdamma[3]. In the decision first cited, this Court noticed that recovery by arrest and detention in execution of decree is one of the modes provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure, as the arrest and detention are matters involving personal liberty of citizens and hence arbitrary arrests or orders of arrest not supported by any reasons and in a routine way without application of mind or without properly examining matter were deprectated. This Court, therefore, observed that while ordering arrest and detention of the judgment debtors, the following principles have to be borne in mind. 1. Passing cryptic orders not based on reasons have to be avoided. 2. Courts are expected to be cautious while making order of arrest in execution of decree since it involves personal liberty. 3. Proper opportunity has to be given and necessary enquiry has to be made while making an order of arrest. 4. Courts may also examine whether other modes of recovery are available to the decree holder and is it necessary to order arrest for recovery of the amount and whether judgment debtors are wilfully and intentionally neglecting to discharge the decree debts and Courts may examine the relevant circumstances also in this regard. 5. Even while making an order of arrest in default of appearance of the judgment debtors Courts have to prima facie satisfy themselves on the material placed before them that an order of arrest can be made. 6. Courts shall also fix the period for which the judgment debtors are to be kept in detention. To a similar effect are the decisions 2nd and 3rd cited. It is also reiterated in the decision third cited that once the Court is satisfied that the judgment debtor has neglected to pay the decretal amount in spite of possessing sufficient means, the refusal to order his arrest and detention in civil prison on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of attachment of his properties is not legal. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal position, if we examine the facts of the present case and particularly, the cross-examination of the petitioner/judgment debtor, it is no doubt true that he denied the suggestions that he gave Sy.Nos.756 and 758 of Katnagallu village comprising of Ac.5-00 on lease to one B. Ramalinga Reddy for raising watermelon crop and collected Rs.30,000/- towards lease. He, however, accepted that he had drilled a bore-well in Sy.No.12/5 and 12/2 but could not get water. More importantly, he admits that he has taken crop insurance for nearly Ac.17-00 of the land from the Government and he also expects that he is entitled to compensation awarded in the land acquisition proceedings relating to some of his lands, which were acquired for Handri Neeva project quantified at Rs.2,17,489/- and the judgment debtor asserts that out of the sale amount he is entitled to get Rs.1,40,000/-. The executing Court, has taken note of the aforesaid statement of the petitioner/judgment-debtor in para 9 of the impugned order and came to the conclusion that the petitioner having received the insurance amount, admittedly, and compensation towards land acquisition being available to the judgment-debtor was noticed and keeping in view the value of the execution petition being Rs.33,023/-, the executing Court concluded that the petitioner is avoiding to pay the decretal amount in spite of having sufficient means with an intention to avoid payment. After examining the record and noticing the extracts from the cross-examination of the petitioner, as above, and the findings of the executing Court as above, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below has either applied a perverse reasoning or that the Court below has not kept in mind the guidelines required to be followed by the executing Court before ordering arrest. In the present case, due enquiry has been conducted and sufficient opportunity is given to both sides to lead evidence and based on the said evidence, the conclusions are reached by the executing Court, which cannot be faulted on any ground. The interference with the impugned order under revisional jurisdiction of this Court is, therefore, not warranted. However, keeping in view the advanced age of the petitioner together with the medical problems as stated by him, purely as an indulgence, the petitioner is granted one month time from today to deposit the entire E.P. amount to the credit of the executing Court failing which, the executing Court is free to proceed with the execution in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 2nd December, 2010 Note:- Office is directed to communicate the copy of the order to the Court below within one week (B/O) bud THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.180 of 2010 Dated:02.12.2010 [1] 2002 Supp (2) ALD Page 300 [2] 2008 LAP page 146 [3] 2009 (4) ALD Page 6666