HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2865 OF 2010 Between: Adapa Sri Ramakrishna … Petitioner And Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., rep. By its Manager and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2865 OF 2010 ORDER:- The Judgment Debtor filed this revision aggrieved by the orders passed in E.P.No.13 of 2008 in O.S.No.117 of 2005, dated 08.03.2010 by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, whereby the E.P. filed by the Decree Holder has been allowed holding that the Judgment Debtor in spite of having sufficient amounts is evading to pay the E.P.Amount and issued arrest warrant to Judgment Debtors 1, 2, 4 and 5. To give an opportunity to the petitioner, this Court stayed the execution of the warrant, on condition of the petitioner depositing half of the decreetal amount within a period of four weeks on 30.07.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now reported that the conditional order has not been complied with. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff obtained a money decree against judgment debtor Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. For due execution of the decree, he filed the above E.P., contending that the judgment debtors are doing business and earning money but they have not discharged the decreetal amount. In order to substantiate his plea, the decree holder himself examined as P.W.1 and nothing favourable to the petitioner was elicited in the cross-examination, Whereas the 1st judgment debtor, who was examined as R.W.1, deposed that he never did kirana and general stores business and due to his illhealth, he is not doing any work and he has no property of his own. But in the cross-examination he admitted that D2 is his brother-in-law and he is having acquaintance with D3, D4 and D5. D2 attended proceedings on his behalf and he informed that an attachment petition is filed by the plaintiff against his properties in the suit. He denied about his possessing Rs.10,00,000/- worth of property besides kirana business. He admitted that he did kirana business and at present he stopped the same. It is for him to establish about the stopping of the business. R.W.2, who is a third party, in the cross- examination deposed that he is drawing Rs.2,800/- per month as salary and the 1st judgment debtor is drawing Rs,2,500/- per month as salary. R.W.3, who is the 2nd judgment debtor admitted that he did paddy commission business and sustained loss. But he failed to establish the same. In the cross-examination he stated that he did business in paddy under the name and style of Sri Surya Trading company and after filing the E.P. into the Court he paid Rs.1,20,000/- towards part satisfaction of the E.P.Amount. He further deposed that the 1st judgment debtor is having sufficient means to discharge the decreetal amount. The trial court on consideration of the entire evidence rightly concluded that the judgment debtors are having sufficient means to dicharge the decreetal amount, but they are avoiding to discharge the same and accordingly, ordered the E.P. The order so passed by the trial court on appreciation of the evidence does not suffer from any manifest illegality, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 24th September 2010 lmv