IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1028 of 2011 Between: T. Naresh Kumar .. Petitioner AND K. Lingam Setty .. Respondent ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in E.P.No.70 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, dated 09-02-2011. The Execution Petition was filed for recovery of the decree debt in O.S.No.3 of 2006 to a tune of Rs.60,933/- by the date of Execution Petition. The judgment debtor resisted the request for execution against his person claiming that attachment of salary could have been asked for and personal liberty need not have been interfered with. The Executing Court, after examining PW.1 and RW.1 and marking Ex.R.1 during the enquiry, passed the impugned order opining that the judgment debtor being an employee in Government Service drawing a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and holding a house cannot claim to be having no means and had he paid at least Rs.2,000/- per month, the entire decree amount would have been discharged by now. Therefore, the Executing Court directed issuance of warrant of arrest against the judgment debtor by the impugned order. The judgment debtor again sought for proceeding against his salary than against the person in this revision. Though notice before admission was served on the decree holder-respondent, none entered appearance for him. Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel representing Sri V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is susceptible for interference in revision? Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel, brought to notice that before the impugned order, Rs.10,000/- was deposited to the credit of the matter, while Rs.25,000/- was deposited on 18-04-2011 in pursuance of the interim directions of this Court dated 22-03-2011 ordering interim suspension of the impugned order subject to the judgment debtor depositing such a sum. The judgment debtor is admittedly a Teacher and his salary certificate was marked during the enquiry. What portion of his salary is subject to attachment in execution of a decree has not been detailed in the impugned order and in computing the means of a judgment debtor, it is well settled that it is only property, which is subject to attachment in execution of a decree that has to be taken into account in computing the means of the judgment debtor for the purpose, as the Explanation 1 of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure exempts properties exempt from attachment in execution of a decree from consideration of means for the purpose of proceeding with arrest or detention in execution of a decree. Apart from the salary certificate of the judgment debtor, the possession or ownership of any house property by the judgment debtor was not evidenced by any document during the enquiry and it is only the failure of RW.1 to deny the holding of house property that led the Executing Court to consider the proof of means against him. Under the circumstances, the conclusion of the Executing Court about the existence of means for the judgment debtor to pay the decree debt in full or substantially since the decree up to the Execution Petition cannot be considered to be beyond doubt. The extreme step of arrest and detention in civil prison will necessarily prejudice the occupation of the judgment debtor as a Teacher in a Government School and if he were to be prevented from attending to his duties for a considerable time, his job and consequently the means for maintenance of himself and his family would be at stake. In view of the payments made by the judgment debtor since the Execution Petition to a tune of Rs.35,000/- as against the amount claimed in the Execution Petition at Rs.60,933/-, it will be in the interests of justice to grant further time to the judgment debtor to discharge the decree debt while his default in discharging the decree debt before such time may be considered by the Executing Court in taking recourse to the next step to be ordered in the Execution Petition. While the impugned order could not have been straight away considered to be wholly without jurisdiction under the circumstances stated above, the judgment debtor should be given a reasonable opportunity to discharge the decree debt. Therefore, the judgment debtor is granted time for six (6) months from the date of communication of this order to the Executing Court to pay the balance of the decree debt and fully satisfy the decree debt. In default of the judgment debtor fully satisfying the decree debt before the expiry of such period, the Executing Court can proceed further with the execution of the decree in accordance with law, particularly subject to the provisions of the Order XXI Rules 37 and 40 read with Sections 51 and 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Till such time no further step should be ordered in the Execution Petition, which shall be kept pending. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-08-2011 Ksn