The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.2225 of 2010 Dated 27th August, 2010 Between: Sri J.Rami Reddy …Petitioner And Sri M.Rang Swamy …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.M.Balasubrahmanyam Counsel for the respondent: Sri K.V.Raghuveer The Court made the following: Order: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 13-04-2010, in E.P.No.351 of 2009 in O.S.No.188 of 2004, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone. Petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.188 of 2004. The respondent herein, who is the decree holder, has filed E.P.No.351 of 2009 seeking arrest and sending the petitioner to civil prison for non-payment of the decretal amount. In support of his application, the respondent has stated that the petitioner is carrying on groundnut business and getting an income of Rs.50,000/- per anum apart from owning a house, which is worth about Rs.1,50,000/-, at Peapully Village. It is further pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner also owns landed property admeasuring Ac.20-00, which is worth about Rs.10,00,000/-, in the same village, and is getting an income of Rs.1 lakh per annum out of the said property. It is further pleaded that the petitioner is also a fair price shop dealer and earns about Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner, who examined himself as RW.1, has denied his owning any of the properties and getting the income as alleged by the respondent. Neither of the parties have adduced any documentary evidence. The Court below, believing the version of the respondent and observing that the petitioner failed to adduce any documentary evidence to prove that he is not a fair price shop dealer and that he does not own any of the properties as alleged by the respondent, allowed the EP directing the arrest of the petitioner and his detention in the civil prison. On a careful consideration of the reasons contained in the order under revision, I am of the opinion that the Court below has committed a serious error in placing burden on the petitioner to prove that he does not possess the properties and have the means to pay the decretal amount. This approach is contrary to the settled legal position that being the decree holder, who is seeking the arrest of the judgment debtor, the primary burden lies on him to prove that the judgment debtor despite having sufficient means is neglecting to pay the decretal amount. Therefore, the order under revision cannot be sustained. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent- decree holder that in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 18-06-2010, the petitioner has deposited half of the decretal amount. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that he has no instructions on this aspect. Inasmuch as the decree passed against the petitioner has become final, I find it appropriate that the respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount, if the same was already deposited by the petitioner. Conversely, if no amount has been deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order of this court, in view of the setting aside of the order under revision, the petitioner is not liable to comply with the said interim order. Subject to the above observations, the order under revision is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. This order, however, does not preclude the petitioner from initiating fresh action for execution of the decree for recovery of the outstanding amount by producing necessary evidence. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, interim order, dated 18-06-2010, is vacated and CMP.No.2975 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 27th August, 2010 lur