THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2718 of 2009 Dated:- 24th March, 2011 Between:- S.Netaji …Petitioner AND M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd., …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2718 of 2009 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.04.2009 passed in E.P.No.2 of 2006 in O.S.No.47 of 1998 by the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. 2. The petitioner herein is Judgment Debtor No.3 and the respondent herein is the decree holder in the Original Suit. The first respondent herein obtained a decree on 18.11.1999 for Rs.17,946/- against the petitioner herein. It appears that the first respondent herein/decree-holder earlier filed E.P.No.12 of 2001 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, for the recovery of decreetal amount, but the same was dismissed for non deposit of process. 3. The first respondent herein/Decree-holder filed the E.P.No.2 of 2006 and on behalf of the petitioner herein, Vakalat was also filed in the said E.P. on 07.03.2006 and that the matter underwent several adjournments for filing of counter. But however, the said E.P. was dismissed for default on 21.09.2007. Then, the first respondent herein/decree holder filed E.A.No.200 of 2007 for restoration of E.P.No.2 of 2006 and as the petitioner herein/Judgment Debtor No.3 failed to file the counter, E.P.No.2 of 2006 was restored to file on 02.04.2008. It appears that on 25.07.2009, the petitioner herein/judgment debtor No.3 was called absent and the Court below has accordingly set him ex parte and issued arrest warrant against him. Challenging the same, present revision is filed. 4. Heard. 5. Admittedly, no enquiry has been conducted to ascertain as to whether the petitioner herein/judgment debtor No.3 has sufficient means to satisfy the decree or not, which is mandatory. Though the petitioner herein/judgment debtor No.3 was set ex parte, it was obligatory on the part of the first respondent/decree-holder to prove that the petitioner has means to satisfy the decree or that he has wilfully neglected to satisfy the decree. 6. Having regard to the fact that no enquiry has been conducted to ascertain the means of the petitioner, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the Court below with a direction to give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence so as to ascertain whether the petitioner herein/Judgment Debtor No.3 has sufficient means to satisfy the decree or not. The petitioner herein/Judgment Debtor No.3 is hereby directed to appear before the Court below on 28.04.2011 and to cooperate in disposal of the case and the Court below shall dispose of the matter as early as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The High Court Registry is directed to send the records to the Court below, keeping in view the direction to the petitioner herein/Judgment Debtor No.3 to appear before the Court below on 28.04.2011. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 24th March, 2011 Bvv Note:- Issue C.C. by 28.03.2011 (B/o) Bvv