THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.2447 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is judgment debtor No.2 in the suit in O.S.No.305 of 2000 filed by the 1st respondent/decree holder against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein, who is judgment debtor No.1. The said suit was decreed on 23-03-2006 for a sum of Rs.6,00,129/- . As the decretal amount was not paid, the 1st respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No.79 of 2006 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of CPC seeking arrest of the petitioner herein as well as the 2nd respondent. The court below vide its order, dated 28-04-2009, allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The petitioner herein filed a counter before the court below stating that previously he was running a cycle shop and presently, he is not doing any business due to ill-health and became insolvent and, therefore, he has no sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and he also filed I.P.No.59 of 2006 to declare him as an insolvent and the same was dismissed, against which, he preferred A.S.No.91 of 2008 and the same is said to have been pending. The court below, while allowing E.P.No.79 of 2006, recorded a finding that the judgment debtor by suppressing the fact of running a hotel business in the year 2007 filed I.P. in the year 2006 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that I.P.No.59 of 2008 filed by the petitioner seeking to declare him as an insolvent was dismissed. If the petitioner has no means or properties, the question of dismissing his insolvency petition does not arise. But, however, I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the appeal pending against the dismissal of I.P.No.59 of 2006. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below rightly allowed the said application and I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order, so as to call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is always open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in the appeal, if any pending, against the dismissal of I.P.No.59 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 30-12-2011 Prv