IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3516 OF 2009 BETWEEN Bavirisetti Srinivas. …PETITIONER AND Bandaru Ramarao. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: MR. G. RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K.V. SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU The Court made the following: - ORDER: The petitioner is judgment debtor in EP.No.46 of 2008 in O.S.No.51 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili. The respondent/decree holder seeks to execute the decree for EP amount of Rs.1,21,332/- and the said decree holder had made an application seeking arrest of the judgment debtor on the ground that he is evading payment. The said application was opposed. The judgment debtor and the decree holder were examined as P.W.1 and R.W.1 and the Court below on consideration of evidence found that Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not apply to the case on hand, as, admittedly, the judgment debtor is carrying on cultivation of his lands through coolies and not personally. The Court below, therefore, directed issuance of arrest warrant by impugned order dated 17.07.2009. Questioning the same this revision is preferred. 2. This Court by order dated 31.07.2009 while issuing notice on admission granted interim stay on condition of petitioner depositing 1/4th of the decretal amount within six weeks. The said six weeks period expired sometime in September 2009. 3. Heard both sides. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to see any point in the contention of the petitioner that there ought to be positive evidence from the decree holder with respect to means of the judgment debtor. The Court below has already given finding on the basis of cross- examination of judgment debtor. In the cross-examination the judgment debtor admitted that he is having few lands and he is getting the lands cultivated through his coolies. He denied the suggestion that he owns a cinema hall and that he is also doing cloth business and other businesses. 5. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, therefore, the only concession extendable to the petitioner is granting him time to pay the balance the EP amount. The civil revision petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as it is devoid of any merits. The petitioner, however, is granted time up to the end of February 2011 to pay the balance of the EP amount failing which the executing Court shall be free to proceed with the execution in accordance with law. The amounts deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order earlier as well as the amounts, if any, deposited in pursuance of this order shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent/decree holder without furnishing any security. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed subject to above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 23, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in one week. (B/o) DSK