THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6338 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 10.11.2009 in E.P. No.214 of 2008 in O.S. No.336 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, whereunder and whereby Execution Petition filed by the respondent/decree holder was allowed ordering issue of arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). 2. The respondent/decree holder filed Original Suit No.336 of 2005 before the court below for recovery of money and obtained decree on 22.09.2006, and filed the Execution Petition for realization of the debt stating that the petitioner/judgment debtor failed to pay the decreetal amount though he is having sufficient means, and to order his arrest and detention in civil prison if he fails to repay the said amount. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the decree holder failed to prove that the judgment debtor is getting income of Rs.60,000/-; that, the particulars of business being done by the judgment debtor have not been given; that the judgment debtor has no means to pay the decreetal amount, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that though the judgment debtor has got movable and immovable properties and getting income therefrom, he is intentionally evading to pay the decreetal amount, and considering the income of the judgment debtor, the trial court rightly ordered his arrest, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Section 51 read with Order XXI Rule 37 CPC empower the court to send judgment debtor to civil prison when he willfully does not honour the decree with an intention to neglect or evade to pay the decreetal amount. In considering an application for arrest of a judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC, two requirements are to be established by the decree holder viz. the judgment has sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and that he is wantonly or willfully avoiding to pay the same. If these two ingredients are satisfied, then the judgment debtor is liable to be sent to civil prison. 6. With regard to the means of the judgment debtor, the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the judgment debtor is doing business and the said fact has not been disputed. As the judgment debtor is doing business, it can safely be said that the judgment debtor is having means to pay though not entire decreetal amount, but a substantial portion thereof. The decree was passed on 22.9.2006. No efforts have been made by the judgment debtor to pay the decreetal amount after passing of the decree. This would go to show that the conduct of the judgment debtor is to evade the payment as along as he can do so. Since the decreetal amount is about Rs.60,000/-, had he paid atleast Rs.1,000/- per month after passing of the decree, he would have discharged the entire decreetal amount by this time. Therefore, the necessary inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case is that the judgment debtor is wantonly evading to pay the amount. Therefore, the executing court rightly ordered for arrest of the petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 7. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to deposit the decreetal amount due. Therefore, the impugned order is kept under abeyance for a period of four months from today i.e. till 18.06.2011 to enable the petitioner to deposit the decreetal amount due together with costs and interest. On such deposit, the respondent/decree holder is entitled to withdraw to the same. If the petitioner fails to deposit the remaining decreetal amount on or before 18.06.2011, the impugned order shall be given effect to, without granting any further time and without entertaining any application for extension of time. 8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 17.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6338 OF 2009 17.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6338 OF 2009 17.2.2011 Between: Katakam Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner And Arja Rama Krishna Rao …Respondent