THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1846 OF 2007 24th June 2010 BETWEEN: KOTAPATI VENKATA SIVARAO .. PETITIONER AND KODALI SUBBA RAO .. RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1846 OF 2007 O R D E R: The order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District, in E.P.No.111 of 2006 in O.S.No.235 of 2002 dated 1-3-2007, is under challenge in this revision by the respondent-judgment debtor. An Execution Petition was filed, under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of CPC, for realisation of the E.P. amount by arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison. The Court below noted the averments and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who were examined on behalf of the decree holder and the evidence adduced by RWs.1 and 2 on behalf of the judgment debtor. The court below held that Exs.X1 to X6 were the adangal extracts for 1410 fasli to 1415 fasli of Nagaram Mandalam of Mantripalem village from which it was evident that the judgment debtor (in Sy.No.1271/1) had Ac.1.88 cents, and (in Sy.No.1271/2) Ac.2.02 cents. The Court below relied on Exs.X 7 to X 9 which showed that the judgment debtor had a house in Assessment No.364. The court below held that the judgment debtor held Ac.3.90 cents of land, and a house site in Mantripalam village and that he had sufficient means to discharge the debt. The E.P. was allowed directing arrest of the judgment debtor by 3.4.2007. The finding of the court below, based on the evidence on record, has not been disputed, rightly so, before this court. Sri.K.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would, however, submit that the respondent-decree holder ought to have resorted to other means for realisation of the decretal amount, and not seek arrest of the judgment debtor. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner would discharge the entire E.P. amount within one month from today. The submission that the decree holder is required to resort to attachment and sale of the property, belonging to the judgment debtor, before he can seek his arrest is a submission only to be noted to be rejected as the Civil Procedure Code specifically provides for the decree holder to resort to any means either by arrest or attachment and sale of immovable properties belonging to the judgment debtor. The order of the court below does not suffer from any infirmity necessitating interference by this court. Sri.K.Nageshwar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-decree holder, would submit that the petitioner herein would not pay the E.P. amount even if this Court granted one month’s time as requested by him since he had failed to comply with the interim directions of this Court dated 27.4.2007 to deposit one third of the decretal amount and costs within six weeks. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner herein had not deposited the said amount even till date though more than three years had elapsed since the date of the interim order. In the light of the undertaking, given on behalf of the petitioner, by Sri.K.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, I consider it appropriate to keep the order of the Trial court in abeyance till 24.7.2010. In case the petitioner fails to pay the E.P. amount on or before 24.7.2010, it is open to the Court below to have the petitioner- judgment debtor arrested, and to take action thereafter. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. 24th June 2010. ( RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J ) cc in one week tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1846 OF 2007 24TH JUNE 2010.