IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1682 OF 2011 Between: Pathivada Appala Naidu …Petitioner A n d Srinivasa Finance Rep. by its Partner Smt.Sayyapu Reddy Magathayaru. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1682 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.04.2011 in E.P.No.254 of 2008 in O.S.No.120 of 2006, on the file of the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said EP filed by the respondent herein, decree holder, under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 CPC seeking arrest and detention of petitioner/ judgment debtor in civil prison for realization of decree debt, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of amount due from the petitioner and obtained a decree for a sum of Rs.7,67,116/-. The said decree has admittedly become final. The respondent filed E.P.No.254 of 2008 seeking arrest and detention of petitioner/ judgment debtor in civil prison in realization of the decree debt on the ground that in spite of having sufficient means, the judgment debtor is deliberately evading to pay. According to the respondent/decree holder, the petitioner/judgment debtor owns an extent of Ac.24-00 of land and is also working in Andhra University, drawing a salary of Rs.16,000/- per month. The petitioner/judgment debtor does not dispute his employment with Andhra University, but however, denies that he is owning any land. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A-1 adangal pahani issued by Tahasildar, Poosapatirega, Vizianagaram was marked on behalf of the decree holder. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-16 were marked on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor. 5. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A-1 established that the petitioner/judgment debtor was having an extent of Ac.24-00 of land. The petitioner/judgment debtor seeks to dispute Ex.A-1 on the ground that the said document was not signed by Tahasildar on every page. Ex.A-1 contains the signature of Tahasildar on the last page. Relying upon Ex.A-1, the execution Court held that the judgment debtor is having about Ac.24-00 of land with source of irrigation. Admittedly, the petitioner/judgment debtor is working in Andhra University and is presently drawing a salary of about Rs.25,000/-. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner/judgment debtor has no means to pay the decree debt. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is suffering from paralysis and has to support his family comprising wife and two children and that he is unable to pay the entire amount in lumpsum. 6. As seen from the impugned order, the judgment debtor in his counter has not raised any plea regarding his ill-health, though he filed Exs.B-1 to B-16, medical prescriptions and reports. In the absence of any such plea in the counter, the trial Court has not considered the said documents. This Court, by interim order dated 27.02.2011 directed the judgment debtor to deposit Rs.1 lakh and also continue to pay at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is stated that the interim order is being complied with by the petitioner/judgment debtor. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the judgment debtor is employed and is earning salary of Rs.25,000/- per month, the decree holder ought to have sought attachment of salary of the judgment debtor for realization of the amount due under the decree, instead of seeking his arrest. 8. Section 51 CPC prescribes various modes of execution of the decree and it is open to the decree holder to avail and choose any of the modes and it is not for the judgment debtor to dictate as to which of the mode of execution has to be preferred over the other by the decree holder. The law does not prohibit the decree holder from seeking arrest and detention of the judgment debtor without first seeking attachment of the salary of the judgment debtor. When once it is established by the decree holder that the judgment debtor is having sufficient means to discharge the decree debt, but is still evading to pay the same, the decree holder is certainly entitled to proceed under Order XXI Rule 37 and 38 CPC notwithstanding the fact that the judgment debtor is employee and is earning salary. The impugned order, holding that the judgment debtor is having sufficient means to discharge the decree debt but is still evading to pay, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th November, 2011 Lrkm.