THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5534 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 30.08.2010 in E.P.No.7 of 2006 in O.S.No.17 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Parkal. The petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.17 of 2000 for recovery of the suit amount and the said suit was decreed on 08.11.2001. The respondent herein, who is the defendant in the suit, carried the matter in appeal - A.S.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Warangal. However, the said appeal was dismissed. Thus, the decree passed against the respondent herein has been confirmed. Then, the petitioner herein filed E.P.No.7 of 2006 and he had specifically mentioned that the respondent/Judgment Debtor (JDr) is having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. He has also filed an affidavit in support of the E.P. The respondent/JDr filed a counter in the E.P. and his main contention is that without exhausting the other remedies available under law, the petitioner/Decree Holder (DHr) cannot seek his arrest and detention. In para 5 of his counter, the respondent/JDr stated that he is not having sufficient means to pay the decretal debt, but he has, however, obliged to satisfy the decree in future, whenever he got sufficient means. Before the lower Court, the petitioner/DHr himself was examined as P.W.1, Bochu @ Mucherla Babu was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P-1 – Adangal Pahani for the year 2005-06 was marked. On behalf of the respondent/JDr, he himself was examined as R.W.1 besides examining R.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.R-1 to R22 were marked. As seen from the record and the order of the lower Court, though the petitioner/DHr filed Ex.P-1 Adangal Pahani for the year 2005-06 issued by the Village Secretary, the said document was disbelieved by the lower Court on the ground that it is not a computerised Pahani issued by the Deputy Tahsildar or the Mandal Revenue Officer. A reading of the order of the lower Court gives an impression that the respondent/JDr has alienated certain properties. R.W.2 purchased land to an extent of Acs.3.00 in survey No.557 and R.W.3 purchased land to an extent Acs.2.32 guntas of land in survey No.741/B and Acs.2.31 guntas in survey No.741/C situated at Nainpaka Village. R.W.4 also deposed that he got land to an extent of Ac.0.21 guntas in survey No.562 and Ac.1.00 in survey No.563 situated at Nainpaka Village in the partition. All the pahanis filed by the respondent/JDr would go to show the property was in possession of others during 2007-08. Admittedly, the decree was passed on 08.11.2001. So, it is not clear whether alienations were made by the respondent/JDr after the petitioner/DHr obtained the decree and whether the respondent/JDr, having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, is trying to defraud the petitioner/DHr. As agreed by both the counsel, I find it just and reasonable to remand the matter to the lower Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Both the parties may adduce further evidence, if necessary. The lower Court shall ascertain as to when those alienations were made and when the partition took place and whether the respondent/JDr having sufficient means refusing to pay the decretal amount, and dispose of the E.P.No.7 of 2006 expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J 17th June, 2011 GHN