HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No. 4912 of 2010 Date: 18-03-2011 Between: Petta Satya Govinda Ramachandra Rao …….Petitioner and Polisetty Kumar Gupta ……….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No. 4912 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 27- 09-2010 passed in E.P.No.31 of 2009 in O.S.No.1220 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, suffered a decree, dated 26-06-2006 in O.S.No.1220 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- and the appeal filed by him in A.S.No.209 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapanam, was also dismissed on 29-06-2009. As the decretal amount was not paid, the respondent- decree holder filed E.P.No.31 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,49,643-50 ps. The Court below considered the rival contentions and the oral evidence of the plaintiff-decree holder, who deposed that the petitioner is a rich and influencing person having vast movable and immovable properties in Narsipatnam and also at other places. He is the distributor for ITC products under the name and style of M/s. Surya Chandra Enterprises at Narisipatnam, and the monthly turnover is in crores of rupees. He is an income tax assessee and also a member of the Waltair club where the affluent class people are given membership. He owns an Indica car and having sufficient means. Though the decree holder did not file any document in support of his contention, the judgment debtor himself admitted that the monthly turnover of his business is Rs.30,00,000/-. Therefore, the Court below observed that in view of the admission of the judgment debtor that he is doing the business and the monthly turnover is Rs.30,00,000/-, it cannot be said that he is not paying the income tax and sales tax and, having regard to the facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is having sufficient means and inspite of having sufficient means, he is intentionally evading to make payment and accordingly allowed the said execution petition and issued warrant on payment of process. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. This Civil Revision Petition is filed without enclosing the relevant material papers such as affidavit and counter, if any, filed before the Court below, except filing the certified copy of the impugned order and the E.P. papers. However, from the perusal of the impugned order, it indicates that the petitioner filed a counter alleging that the E.P. amount is not correct and he has no means to pay the amount and therefore, the said E.P. for sending him to civil prison is not maintainable. This Court, while issuing notice before admission on 12-11-2010, directed the petitioner to pay half of the E.P. amount within a period of three weeks from that day and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said order is complied with and half of the E.P. amount was deposited. It cannot be said that the petitioner has no means to pay the E.P. amount as admittedly he himself accepted in his deposition that the monthly turnover of his business is Rs.30,00,000/- and further he had also deposited half of the E.P. amount in pursuance of the order of this Court. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or otherwise in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to pay the remaining E.P. amount in three equal installments i.e., the first installment by the end of March, 2011, the second installment by the end of April, 2011 and the third installment by the end of May, 2011, and in case of failure to deposit any of the installments, the respondent-decree holder is at liberty to execute the order in question. No order as to costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Date: 18-03-2011 YCR