THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4610 of 2008 Date: 08.10.2010 Between: Kantheti Naga Rama Lakshmi Vara Prasad … Petitioner and Vemula Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4610 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-decree holder. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 25.3.2008, in E.P.No.71 of 2006 in O.S.No.134 of 2001, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-decree holder under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C., seeking to send the respondent-judgment debtor to civil prison. 3. It appears that the petitioner obtained decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-. It is borne out from the record that during the course of cross-examination, the petitioner-decree holder admitted that no documentary evidence was left with him to show the financial capacity of the respondent-judgment debtor to pay the decretal amount. Therefore, except the oral evidence, nothing was left with the decree holder to prove the means of the judgment debtor. That apart, it is the eventual conclusion arrived at by the Court below that apart from the fact that the decree holder miserably failed to prove the means of judgment debtor to pay the E.P. claim, the decree holder is unaware of the share that may be fallen to judgment debtor in the joint family property worth about Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. Therefore, the execution petition filed under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C., is not warranted in order to recover the decretal amount. The decree holder can resort to the alternative methods as contemplated under Section 51 C.P.C. and straight away filing execution petition for recovery of the decretal amount invoking order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C. is an attempt to take away the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Before resorting to such method, the decree holder is always expected to explore the possibility of recovering the decretal amount through the other lawful modes. Under those circumstances, the Court below had rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-decree holder. 5. For the foregoing, I see no grounds in the impugned order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA 08.10.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4610 of 2008 08.10.2010 (Msr)