HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2537 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner whose E.P.No.15 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, seeking execution of the decree, dated 19.03.2008, passed in O.S.No.154 of 2007 was dismissed, approached this Court by way of filing the present Civil Revision Petition. The brief facts of the case are that as the respondent owed certain amount, the petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of the same and it was decreed by the trial Court on 19.03.2008. In spite of repeated reminders as the said decretal amount was not paid, the plaintiff-decree holder filed the said E.P. seeking arrest of the respondent-judgment debtor and to send him to civil prison for non-payment of the said amount. In the said E.P., the decree-holder has taken the stand that the respondent-judgment debtor is a Government employee having sufficient income and that despite the reminders, the said decretal amount has not been paid and hence, the judgment-debtor shall be sent to civil prison. It appears, during the course of the said E.P. proceedings, the respondent-judgment debtor has come forward stating that he is prepared to pay the decretal amount by way of instalments and he cannot pay the entire amount in lump sum. However, the Court below refused to entertain the said E.P. on the sole ground that the decree holder has not established the fact that the judgment-debtor is having sufficient means and thus, dismissed the said E.P. As stated supra, the same is challenged before this Court. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. This Court is of the considered view that the Court below erred in dismissing the said E.P. It is not necessary for the decree-holder to establish by cogent evidence stating that the judgment-debtor is having sufficient means to pay, when once it is an admitted fact that the judgment-debtor is a government employee, it is certain that he has sufficient income. When once a money decree has been passed against him, it is his duty to honour the said decree. It is not known as to what other evidence is required to hold that the judgment-debtor is having sufficient income when it is admitted that he is a government employee. Further, when the judgment-debtor has come forward stating that he is prepared to pay the entire decretal amount in instalments, the Court below ought to have accepted the same and permitted him to pay the decretal amount in instalments. When once a decree passed is not executed and the E.P. is dismissed summarily in a manner like this, it is not known as to for what purpose the said decree is passed. As the respondent-judgment debtor has expressed his willingness to pay the said amount by way of instalments, the order impugned in this Revision is hereby set aside and the respondent- judgment debtor is hereby directed to pay the entire decretal amount of Rs.74,866/- including interest thereon as on today, at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 03rd September 2010 dr