HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Civil Revision Petition No.4022 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor No.1 filed this revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. seeking to assail the order dated 23.7.2009 in E.P. No.23 of 2007 in O.S. No.412 of 2005 on the file of the X Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the judgment debtor No.1 and the 1st respondent is the decree holder. The 1st respondent filed the aforementioned E.P. before the Executing Court seeking arrest of the petitioner and sending him to civil prison for recovery of the decretal amount. The Executing Court, by the impugned order, granted six months time to the petitioner to pay the amount in six monthly instalments at Rs.50,000/- per month. It was also observed that any default in payment of the instalment amount by the petitioner would attract issuance of arrest warrant against the petitioner-judgment debtor No.1, without any further enquiry on any other aspect. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present revision. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Executing Court did not conduct any enquiry as to whether the petitioner was evading payment of the decreetal amount in spite of having sufficient means to pay the same. He further submitted that in spite of the fact that the petitioner raised a plea that substantial amounts have been paid by him through various cheques and even though he furnished details of the same, the Executing Court did not take the same into account. He further submitted that the respondent-decree holder has also not filed any material to rebut the said contention. Hence, he prayed that the revision be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the material on record, it is seen that admittedly no enquiry was conducted by the Executing Court with regard to the financial capacity of the petitioner before passing the impugned order nor any evidence has been let in by the respondent to show that the petitioner is intentionally evading payment of the decreetal amount. It is only on the basis of the respective pleadings, the Executing Court decided to proceed with the case and passed the impugned order. Even with regard to the payments, which were alleged to have been made by the petitioner through some cheques, there is no admission or denial of the same by the respondent. In view of the same, the Executing Court was not justified in passing the impugned order. Further, no order of arrest can be made without conducting proper enquiry and without evidence being let in by both the parties. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the sides. It is also made clear that both the parties are at liberty to lead evidence both oral and documentary. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) Date: 10th March, 2011 pnb