THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.6148 of 2010 Date:02nd December, 2011 Between: M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited rep. by its Manager/Foreman Sri A.V.Satyanarana ..... Petitioner AND T.Suryanarayana S/o.T.Sankaraiah & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.6148 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 30.09.2010, passed in E.P.No.36 of 2009 in O.S.No.178 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the execution petition ﬁled by the decree holder for realization of the decretal amount. 2. Petitioner M/s.Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited is the decree holder in E.P.No.36 of 2009. It ﬁled the E.P. seeking detention of the respondents 1 and 5/judgment debtors 1 and 5 in civil prison for realization of the decretal debt. The respondents 1 and 5 ﬁled counter in the executing Court reporting no means to pay the decretal amount and therefore, they cannot be ordered to be detained in civil prison for realization of the decretal amount. On behalf of the decree holder, one witness was examined as PW.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.A1 & A2, and on behalf of the judgment debtors 1 and 5, they got themselves examined as DW.1 and DW.2 respectively. The executing Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the E.P. on the ground that the decree holder failed to prove that the judgment debtors 1 and 5 having sufficient means neglected to pay the decretal amount, by order, dated 30.09.2010. Hence, this revision by the decree holder. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 21.01.2011. The respondents 1 and 5/judgment debtors 1 and 5 entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/decree holder and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 5/judgment debtors 1 and 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/decree holder submits that the 5th respondent/5th judgment debtor owns a hotel in the name and style of Sai Sudarshan at Proddatur and thereby he has suﬃcient earnings in the hotel business and that itself is suﬃcient to infer that he has means to pay the decretal debt and that he having suﬃcient means neglected to pay the same and thereby he is liable to be detained in civil prison for realization of the decretal amount. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 5/judgment debtors 1 and 5 supported the order impugned in the revision. 7. Under Section 51 CPC, the decree holder has to prove that the judgment debtor having suﬃcient means to pay the amount of the decree or substantial part thereof refused or neglected to pay the same. The decree holder examined one V.Ramu to prove that the judgment debtors 1 and 5 have suﬃcient means. The trial Court considered the evidence of PW.1 and came to the conclusion that the decree holder has not ﬁled any document to show that the respondents 1 and 5/judgment debtors 1 and 5 are running any hotel business. The only document relied upon by the petitioner/decree holder is Ex.A1 certiﬁed copy of the sale deed, dated 03.02.2001. Mere possessing the property by the judgment debtors is not the consideration. The petitioner/decree holder has to prove that judgment debtors having suﬃcient means, neglected or refused to pay the decretal amount. The evidence brought on record by the petitioner/decree holder is wholly insuﬃcient to inter that the respondents 1 and 5/judgment debtors 1 and 5 have any means to discharge the decretal debt. The executing Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the E.P. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The dismissal of the E.P. by the executing Court cannot bar the petitioner/decree holder to bring the properties of the respondents/judgment debtors for sale for realization of the decretal amount. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd December, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.6148 of 2010 Date:02nd December, 2011