IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3247 of 2010 Between: M.Sreenivasulu, S/o.M.Pedda Narasaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.6/8, Near Someswara Talkies Circle, Yemmiganur-518 360, Kurnool District. … Petitioner And B.Allabakash, S/o.Ibrahim Saheb, aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No.5/1653, Lakshmipeta, Yemmiganur-518 360, Kurnool District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Gangarami Reddy Counsel for the respondent : None appeared This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3247 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 09.07.2010 in E.P.No.74 of 2007 in O.S.No.145 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in the above mentioned O.S. The respondent has filed E.P.No.74 of 2007 for sending the petitioner to civil prison under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In his affidavit filed in support of the application, the respondent stated that the petitioner is having properties bearing door Nos.5/18, 5/19, 5/20, 6/93 apart from having food grains dealer shop situated at Yemmiganur, and getting a total income of Rs.10,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that the petitioner was having a house bearing door No.6/8 in Yemmiganur Town, and that he has sufficient means to pay the E.P amount, and despite the same, he is avoiding payment of the amount. The respondent examined himself as P.W.1 in which he has reiterated his above averments. The petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 by filing affidavit in chief. He was also cross examined by the Counsel for the respondent. In his cross examination the petitioner has admitted of having one house in which they were living, and that his two daughters were working as temporary teachers. The petitioner also deposed that the rents from shops were received by his mother, while further admitting that house bearing door No.6/8 stands in her name. The petitioner has, however, denied that he was doing business and earning between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month, and that he was having sufficient means to pay. The Court below in its order has proceeded on a completely wrong premise that the petitioner/judgment debtor has failed to come into the witness box to substantiate his plea that he was not having sufficient means to pay. Even in the appendix of evidence typed at the bottom of the order, it is shown that no witness is examined on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor. But, the petitioner has filed a photocopy of the certified copy of his deposition pertaining to both his chief affidavit and also his cross examination. When the petitioner has come into witness box and has given evidence as R.W.1, I find no justification, whatsoever, for the learned Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, to hold that the judgment debtor has not given evidence by choosing to come into witness box. Notwithstanding the serious error committed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, I am not inclined to disturb the conclusion arrived at by him, because, a perusal of the cross examination of the petitioner shows that he has clearly admitted that he is living with his mother and owing houses and also the properties in which shops are being run, as alleged by the respondent. No further evidence need be adduced by the respondent in the face of those admissions made by the petitioner in his evidence. His evidence, thus, clinchingly proves that in spite of his having sufficient means, he has neglected to pay the decretal amount. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of any relief in this Civil Revision Petition. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, CRPMP.No.4301 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30.07.2010 vs