THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.2317 of 2008 O R D E R: This revision is directed against the order dated 01.04.2008 in E.P.No.566 of 2007 in O.S.No.864 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby the execution petition filed by the decree holder under Order 21, Rules 37 & 38 of C.P.C. was allowed ordering arrest and detention of judgment debtor in civil prison for realisation of the E.P. amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of this Court reported in Kalidindi Rama Raju v Vijaya Bank (Nationalised), Bhimavaram, West Godavari District[1] has submitted that this Court has deprecated the method of sending the judgment debtors to prison for non-payment of the decretal amount and, therefore, the order passed by the lower Court is illegal and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder submitted that the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer and doing business and that in spite of having sufficient means, and having taken time to pay the decretal amount in instalments, failed to pay the amount and, therefore, the order passed by the lower Court is justified. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any merits in the revision and whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside? Admittedly, the petitioner herein suffered a decree in O.S.No.864 of 2006 by the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2007 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. Execution Petition was filed mainly contending that the petitioner herein in spite of having movable and immovable properties and house in Prakash Nagar and ancestral properties in Konganapadu village, failed to pay the decretal amount. The petitioner herein had filed a counter contending inter alia that he was facing financial problems and that he is not in a position to pay the decretal amount at a time and that he is ready to pay the amount in instalments @ Rs.2,000/- per month. It has to be seen that the petitioner herein (judgment debtor) did not deny the averments of the decree holder that he is having movable and immovable properties and big house in Prakash Nagar and ancestral properties in Konganapadu village. Thus, the assertion made by the decree holder in the E.P. is not disputed by the judgment debtor. That he is having sufficient properties and in spite of which the only plea taken by the judgment debtor is that he was facing financial problem and, therefore, he wanted to pay the decretal amount in instalments. The lower Court considering the above facts and the admissions made by the judgment debtor that he is doing business and having landed property and big house came to the conclusion that the judgment debtor is having sufficient means to satisfy the decree and in spite of the same, he was seeking instalments and accordingly dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed. I have carefully perused the grounds of revision and it is surprising to note that even in the grounds of revision, the judgment debtor had not denied the averments of the decree holder with regard to the properties possessed by him. As far as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor cited supra is concerned, it is clear that the judgment debtor therein had filed counter contending that he has no means to pay the decree debt. He was a retired Government employee. He was not the original debtor, but only a guarantor in that case. This Court observed as follows: “ May be that certain judgment debtors may be really dishonest and intentionally and wilfully they neglect to discharge the decree debts. But there are several cases where the judgment debtors are really poor and not having means to discharge the debt. To be poor in this holy traditional but poverty stricken country is not a sin. Hence while ordering arrest and detention of judgment debtors the following principles have to be borne in mind. Passing cryptic orders not based on reasons have to be avoided. Courts are expected to be cautious while making order of arrest in execution of decree since it involves personal liberty. Proper opportunity has to be given and necessary enquiry has to be made while making an order of arrest. Courts may also examine whether other modes of recovery are available to the decree holder and is it necessary to order arrest for recovery of the amount and whether judgment debtors are wilfully and intentionally neglecting to discharge the decree debts and Courts may examine the relevant circumstances also in this regard. Even while making an order of arrest in default of appearance of the judgment debtors Courts have to prima facie satisfy themselves on the material placed before them that an order of arrest can be made”. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances of this case. In this case, the judgment debtor is a businessman. It is not in dispute that he is a fair price shop dealer. Moreover, he is having sufficient properties as indicated above, which include a big house in Prakash Nagar and ancestral properties in Konganapadu village. Admittedly, the decree was passed on 12.04.2007 and till this date he has not paid a single pie. Thus it is clear that he is dishonest and has no intention to pay the decretal amount. Therefore, the character and conduct of the judgment debtor does not deserve any kind of sympathy from this Court. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted four weeks’ time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the lower Court to pay the entire decretal amount to the judgment debtor or deposit the same to the credit of E.P.No.566 of 2007. If the petitioner-judgment debtor fails to pay the decretal amount with accrued interest thereon as directed above, the lower Court may issue arrest warrant against the petitioner-judgment debtor. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J 24th March, 2011 PNV [1] 2002-ALD-Supp2-300, 2001-DT(AP)-2-289