IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3804 OF 2007 Between:- Dharmala Durga Prasad …Petitioner A n d M.Harikrishna …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3804 OF 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 09-08-2007 in E.P.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.3339 of 1999, on the file of the II- Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said E.P filed by the respondent herein for realization of the decretal amount by seeking arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor, was allowed and warrants were ordered to be issued against him under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor. None appeared for the respondent/decree holder and notice issued against the respondent was returned as ‘not claimed’. Perused the records. 3. It is not disputed that the respondent herein filed suit for recovery of an amount due from the petitioner-judgment debtor and the said suit was decreed on 16-11-2001 for a sum of Rs.47,460/-. As the decree debt was not discharged, the respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No.184 of 2003 for recovery of a sum of Rs.59,095/- due under the decree, besides E.P costs in a sum of Rs.1,534/- by seeking arrest of the judgment debtor on the ground that in spite of having sufficient means, the judgment debtor has been evading to pay the debt. The petitioner-judgment debtor filed a counter denying that he has got any means to pay the decree debt. 4. During enquiry, the decree holder was examined as P.W.1 and the judgment debtor was examined as R.W.1. No documents were marked on either side. 5. According to the decree holder, the judgment debtor was owning a flat worth Rs.10 lakhs at Daba Gardens, Visakhapatam and is also doing business in finance. The judgment debtor admitted that he owns a flat in Visakhapatnam but contended that there is a litigation pertaining to the same as the L.I.C Housing Corporation Limited filed a suit for recovery of a certain amount due from the vendor of the judgment debtor towards housing loan for which the flat was under mortgage. Admittedly, the said suit was filed against the vendor of the judgment debtor only and the judgment debtor was not a party to the suit proceeding. As the matter stands, the judgment debtor is the absolute owner of the flat and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It cannot, therefore, be said that the judgment debtor was totally devoid of any means to discharge the decree debt. The suit was filed in the year 1999 for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the decree was passed in 2001 and till now the judgment debtor has not discharged the decree debt. It is, however, stated that in pursuance of the interim order of stay granted on 24-08-2007, the judgment debtor deposited one-fourth of the E.P amount to the credit of the suit. If that is so, the judgment debtor is granted three months’ time for discharge of the balance amount due under the decree. In the event of default in payment of the amount, the decree holder would be at liberty to proceed further with the execution of the decree. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order of stay granted on 24-08-2007 stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st July, 2010. Lrkm.