THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3475 OF 2011 02.09.2011 Between: Chokka Yesupadam …Petitioner AND Chokka Krupavalli …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3475 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is Judgment Debtor (J.Dr) in O.S.No.296 of 2007. The said suit is filed by respondent for recovery of Rs.3,60,000/- which was paid as advance under an agreement of sale to purchase the property from the petitioner. Be that as it is, the suit was decreed on 25.01.2010. The respondent took out execution being E.P.No.284 of 2010 under Order XXI Rule 37 and Section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for arresting the J.Dr. He alleged that the petitioner has means to pay the decretal amount but he is evading paying the amount. His allegation is that the J.Dr., is having Acs.40.00 of land, two houses worth Rs.3,00,000/- each, he is earning an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from agriculture and equivalent amount from business, and therefore, decree may be executed by arrest of J.Dr. During the enquiry, the decreeholder gave evidence as P.W.1 and did not mark any documents. J.Dr., examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.4. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the non-payment of the amount by J.Dr., amounts to disobeying the decree and that he has sufficient means to pay the amount. Accordingly, the trial Court ordered issue of arrest warrant under Rule 38 of the Civil Rules of Practice. In this revision petition, the counsel for petitioner submits that unless and until the decreeholder specifically alleges that and unless and until the executing Court records a finding that the J.Dr., has means, the drastic step of arresting J.Dr., cannot be taken. This Court is afraid, the submission cannot be accepted. As seen from the impugned order, the decreeholder made clear allegations with regard to the means of J.Dr., and also gave evidence, which remain uncontroverted. The executing Court recorded a finding that the J.Dr., has sufficient means and neglecting to discharge the decreed debt. The order, therefore, does not warrant any interference. The civil revision petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. The dismissal of this revision petition does not preclude the petitioner to pay the amount in the Court and seek exoneration. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02.09.2011 Pln