HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.No.733 OF 2007 ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur in E.P.No.438 of 2005 in O.S.No.122 of 2000, dated 20.11.2006. The decree holder in O.S.No.122 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur sought to execute the decree against the judgment debtor under Order 21, Rule 37 C.P.C. by way of the arrest of the judgment debtor. The claim of the decree holders is that the judgment debtor has got means to satisfy the decree and that the judgment debtor has evaded to do so. The judgment debtor on the other hand contended that he did not have means to honour the decree. The learned counsel for the decree holders who laid the revision contended that the judgment debtor admitted the claim of the decree holders that the judgment debtor has been doing business in tailoring and that the judgment debtor, thus, has admitted his possessing means. It may be pointed out that the decree holders contended that the judgment debtor owns 20 Sewing machines, more than 20 workers and has been indulging himself in cloth business and that the judgment debtor has been earning between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. On the other hand, the judgment debtor claimed that his entire family is dependant upon tailoring work. He did not speak about his engaging workers and his indulging in cloth business. He neither denied the assertions of the decree holders in this regard nor did he admit the same. He however merely denied the allegation that the judgment debtor has got means to honour the decree. When it came to evidence, the 4th decree holder examined himself as PW.1. He did not choose to mark any documents in support of the contention of the decree holders. The judgment debtor neither chose to depose nor chose to mark any document in support of his contention. In this back ground, I consider that it would be just and proper to accord opportunity to both sides to let in further evidence, if any, and to let in documents in support of their respective claims. This is because the decree holders seek for the arrest of the judgment debtor and for sending the judgment debtor to civil prison curtailing the freedom of the judgment debtor. It therefore is justified to accord opportunity to both sides to put forth their stands in detail before the execution Court. Accordingly, this Revision is allowed. The impugned order of the learned trial Judge in E.P.No.438 of 2005 is set aside. The case is remanded to the execution Court. The execution Court shall accord opportunity to both sides to let in further oral and documentary evidence, if any, and after according opportunity to both sides to address the Court, the execution Court shall decide the issue on merits as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 7th December 2010 PNV