HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3560 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in E.P. No. 41 of 2008 in O.S. No. 25 of 2003, dated 1.6.2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty whereby and whereunder warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the petitioner-judgment debtor No.1 for realisation of the decreetal amount in the execution proceedings. The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor and the respondent is the decree holder. The respondent filed the aforementioned execution petition before the trial Court under Order 21 Rule 37 of C.P.C. seeking to issue arrest warrant against the petitioner herein and to send him to civil prison for realisation of the decreetal amount. While opposing the E.P., the petitioner herein filed a counter stating that he is an agricultural coolie and that the property which is sought to be attached by the decree holder is ancestral property and that he is having only a share in it and he does not have full right over the same. The trial Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, allowed the execution petition through the impugned order. Hence, the present revision. While ordering notice before admission on 28.8.2009, this Court granted interim stay of arrest of the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits half of the decreetal amount within two weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court on 28.8.2009, the petitioner has deposited 50% of the decreetal amount. He further stated that the respondent with a view to cause harassment to the petitioner has filed the application straight away under Order 21 Rule 37 of the C.P.C. He further contended that the Executing Court did not follow the procedure contemplated under Section 51(c) and Order 21 of C.P.C. and therefore, the impugned order cannot be enforced and is liable to be set aside. He, therefore, prayed that the revision be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the decree has become final and the petitioner though having means to pay the decreetal amount is intentionally or wantonly avoiding to pay the decreetal amount, and therefore, the trial Court has rightly ordered for arrest. Hence, the said order needs no interference. Simply because an alternative remedy of attachment of property of judgment debtor is available, that does not mean that the decree holder cannot invoke the provisions of Order 21 Rule 37 of C.P.C. The object of this provision is to give protection to Judgment debtor who is incapable of paying the decreetal amount for the reasons beyond his control and who has not committed any act of bad faith. But when the Judgment debtor has, or has had since the date of decree the means to pay the amount of decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same, an order of arrest can be ordered after giving notice and conducting enquiry. Decree holder can invoke the said provision provided the Judgment debtor has means to pay the decreetal amount and that the judgment debtor wantonly or intentionally is avoiding to satisfy the decree. It is also seen from the record that in the instant case, the trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who categorically stated that the judgment debtor has means to pay the amount. The decree holder also examined the Village Revenue Officer, and through him Exs.X1 to X4 were marked to show that at the relevant point of time, the judgment debtor had raised crops. The trial Court having found that the judgment debtor was having landed property to an extent of Acs.5.47 cents and he also raised ground nut crop therein, held that he was having sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and was intentionally avoiding to pay the amount. The said finding cannot be shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference. However, the order of the trial Court is kept under abeyance for a period of four weeks from today to enable the petitioner-Judgment debtor No.1 to pay the remaining amount due under the decree, failing which the petitioner-judgment debtor No.1 shall be sent to civil prison on payment of batta by the decree holder. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU,J DATE: 15.11.2010 pnb