HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2166 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner-Judgment debtor No.2 filed this revision questioning the order dated 3.6.2011 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, allowing E.P.No.172 of 2009 filed for execution of the decree in O.S.No.207 of 2007 and issuing arrest warrant for recovery of the amount under the E.P. On 17.6.2011, while ordering notice before admission, this Court granted stay of execution of arrest warrant subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the decretal amount within a period of two weeks from that day. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioner-Judgment debtor deposited 50% of the decretal amount, which comes to Rs.38,000/- and odd and the remaining balance is only Rs.38,000/- and odd. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that as on the date of the decree, the petitioner had no means and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the decree holder, ordering E.P. for arrest of the judgment debtor is contrary to the law declared by this Court in Gubbala Rama Rao Vs. Kopanathi Survayanaraya[1] and Buddana Nageswara Rao V. Yendeevi Sri Anjaneyulu[2] and since the decree holder failed to discharge the burden, the Court below erred in allowing the E.P. This Court did not find any merits in the above submissions. To substantiate the means of the Judgment debtor, the Decree holder filed Exs.A2 to A4-income tax returns filed by the petitioner as proprietor of Chaitanya Seeds, for the financial years from 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-2006. The said fact was also admitted by the Judgment debtor in the cross-examination that he filed the income tax returns from 2001 to 2007 as proprietor of Chaitanya Seeds. The petitioner-Judgment debtor further stated that from 2007 onwards he started real estate business and it was closed due to financial recession. But he has not filed any document to show that he closed Chaitanya Seeds and started real estate business, where he sustained loss, and closed the said business also. Further, the petitioner-Judgment debtor requested to grant instalment decree at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month in discharge of the E.P. Amount. This itself shows that the decree holder discharged the burden and shifted to the petitioner to show as to why he closed the said business and started real estate business, which was said to have been closed due to financial crisis. In the absence of such evidence, the lower Court rightly ordered the E.P. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, time is granted to the petitioner for a period of six weeks for payment of balance amount. In default, it is always open for the decree holder to proceed further. On such deposit, the decree- holder can withdraw the same. The decree holder is also permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:8th July, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2166 OF 2011 8.7.2011 [1] 2007(2) ALD 363 [2] 2002(2) ALT 56