IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.955 OF 2007 Between:- Merugumala Sivakumar …Petitioner A n d Nersu Janshi Lakshmi and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.955 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17-01-2007 in E.P.No.65 of 2006 in O.S.No.264 of 2003, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, wherein the said E.P was allowed, directing issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner/1st judgment debtor by rejecting his contention that he has no means to pay. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ 1st judgment debtor and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/decree holder. Perused the records. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.264 of 2003 against the petitioner/1st judgment debtor and 2nd respondent for recovery of money and the said suit was decreed on 02-01-2006 in a sum of Rs.3,86,000/- and costs. For realization of the same, the 1st respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.65 of 2006 under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC seeking arrest of the petitioner/1st judgment debtor on the ground that in spite of having sufficient means to pay the decree debt, the judgment debtor is deliberately evading to pay. According to the decree holder, the judgment debtor owns 20 acres of land, each acre worth Rs.10 lakhs and he also owns a rice mill and is running Sai Prasanna Industries and fetching annual income of Rs.5 lakhs. The petitioner/1st judgment debtor filed a counter denying the same and contending that he is now being maintained by his father-in-law. During enquiry, the decree holder was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1-registration extract of partition deed dated 24-04-1972 was marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the judgment debtor. 4. As per Ex.A-1-partition deed, the lands and rice mill, besides other properties shown in ‘B’ schedule therein fell to the share of one Nageswara Rao, who is the father of petitioner/1st judgment debtor. It is not disputed that the said Nageswara Rao is no more and after his death, the said properties devolved upon the petitioner/1st judgment debtor. The petitioner is, therefore, now possessed of valuable assets in the form of immoveable properties and also a rice mill. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner/1st judgment debtor has no means to pay the decree debt. On proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, the execution Court has rightly held that in spite of having sufficient means, the petitioner/1st judgment debtor is neglecting to pay the decree debt. The impugned order directing issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner/ 1st judgment debtor does not, therefore, call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There are no merits in the civil revision petition. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim stay of arrest granted on 06-03-2007 stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th June, 2010. Lrkm.