IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3032 OF 2009 Between: M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd., Basheerbagh Branch, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND S.Sreenivasa Reddy and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3032 of 2009 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.04.2009 dismissing E.P.No.118 of 2008 in O.S.No.571 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed O.S.No.571 of 2007 for recovery of amounts due from the respondents herein. The suit was decreed on 15.11.2007 and pursuant thereto, E.P.No.118 of 2008 was filed for arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison for realisation of the decretal amount. The Judgment debtors/respondents herein filed a counter affidavit stating that they were un-employees and did not have any income and therefore, execution petition for arrest and detention in civil prison was liable to be dismissed. Though PW.1 was examined on behalf of the revision petitioner/decree holder and in the chief examination he stated that the judgment debtor 1 owned land, the judgment debtor 2 owned a house and the judgment debtors 3 and 4 were carrying on business and earning substantial income, no supporting evidence could be produced to substantiate the same. In the circumstances, the Court below dismissed the E.P. holding that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the judgment debtors had sufficient means to discharge the decretal amount. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the decree holder. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order under Revision which shows that no documents were marked on behalf of the decree holder to substantiate his plea that the judgment debtors had sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, I am unable to hold that the finding recorded by the Court below was erroneous. Hence, the E.P. for arrest was rightly dismissed and the interference by this Court is not warranted. However, keeping in view the assertion by the revision petitioner that sufficient material is available to establish that the judgment debtors have sufficient means to repay the decretal amount, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh E.P. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ​_____________ Date: 12.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd