THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.2342 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.310 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty against the respondent for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note. The suit was decreed on 09.03.2007 after trial. The decree became final and thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P.No.63 of 2007 under Rules 37 and 38 of Order 21 C.P.C. with a request to detain the respondent in civil prison. It was alleged that the respondent has fairly large extent of agricultural land apart from mango garden and despite possessing proper means, he failed to honour the decree. The respondent opposed the E.P. Through its order, dated 02.04.2008, the executing Court dismissed the E.P. Hence, this revision. Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent himself filed E.A. in the E.P. offering to pay the decretal amount in instalments and the findings recorded by the executing Court is contrary to the facts and law. He further submits that the executing Court placed burden upon the petitioner to prove the properties held by the respondent as though it is a litigation relating to title. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner failed to establish even prima facie that the respondent possessed adequate means to pay the decretal amount. He contends that the executing Court took the oral and documentary evidence into account and held that the respondent does not possess any means. After the decree passed in O.S.No.310 of 2005 became final, the petitioner filed E.P. for arrest of the respondent. In an execution petition filed under Rules 37 and 38 of Order 21 C.P.C., the decree-holder, no doubt, has to prima facie disclose the details of the properties possessed by the judgment-debtor. It is ultimately for the judgment-debtor to adduce evidence as regards the nature of properties held by him. A decree-holder cannot be expected to know the properties held by a judgment-debtor and he has to depend upon the information furnished to him. The nature of burden to be discharged by him cannot be compared to the one in a suit for declaration of title. This Court repeatedly emphasized this aspect. There is intrinsic evidence to show that the respondent is possessed means to discharge the decree, though not at a time. He himself filed E.A. with a request to extend the facility of payment of decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs.3,000/-. The executing Court ought to have taken that into account. In a way, it permitted the judgment-debtor to avoid payment, if not relieved, from the obligation, despite the fact that the judgment- debtor himself wanted to honour the decree. The approach of the executing Court cannot be countenanced in law. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. E.P.No.63 of 2007 is restored. The respondent is granted the facility of depositing the decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs.4,000/- payable on or before 10th of every month commencing from July, 2010. As and when the amounts are deposited, it shall be open to the petitioner to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. In case, the respondent commits default in payment of instalments for the two consecutive months, he shall be liable to be arrested and confined in civil prison. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.06.2010. kdl