IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1464 OF 2011 Between : Bijivemula Subash Chandra Reddy .... PETITIONER AND Gajulapalli Subbi Reddy …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1464 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 24.02.2011 in E.P.No.101 of 2007 in O.S.No.422 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, whereunder and whereby, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the E.P. filed by the petitioner/decree holder under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking detention of the respondent/judgment debtor in Civil Prison for his neglect to pay the decretal amount in spite of having sufficient means. The background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of the revision by the petitioner/decree holder are that the petitioner filed O.S.No.422 of 2003 for recovery of amount basing on a pronote. Since the suit filed by the petitioner/decree holder ended in decree on 06.08.2001. He filed E.P.No.101 of 2007 seeking detention of the respondent/judgment debtor in Civil Prison for his neglect to pay the decretal amount despite having sufficient funds. The respondent/judgment debtor resisted the relief sought for by the petitioner/decree holder by filing the counter. On behalf of the petitioner/decree holder three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and two documents were marked as Exs.P.1 and P2. On behalf of respondent/judgment debtor three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3. The Learned Junior Civil Judge, Badvel on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent/judgment debtor has no means to pay the decretal amount and thereby proceed to dismiss the E.P. by an order, dated 24.02.2011. Hence, this revision by the petitioner/decree holder. Notice to the respondent came to be ordered on 08.06.2011. Respondent/judgment debtor entered appearance through the counsel. Heard, learned counsel appearing for parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/decree holder submits that respondent/judgment debtor has now secured sufficient means and therefore, the petitioner/decree holder may be permitted to file fresh E.P. seeking the self same relief. If the respondent/judgment debtor acquired assets after dismissal of the E.P.No.101 of 2007, nothing prevents the petitioner/decree holder to proceed against the respondent/judgment debtor. As seen from the order impugned in the revision, the petitioner/decree holder while being examined as P.W.1 admitted that the family of the respondent/judgment debtor possessed only Ac.1.30 cents in survey No.581 and Ac.1.30 cents in Survey No.655 and the said lands are the ancestral properties. The respondent/judgment debtor is one among three persons entitled to the said lands. Even the pattadar pass book relating to the said lands stands in the name of Gajulapalli Subba Reddy, who is father of respondent/judgment debtor. The said Subba Reddy has two other sons apart from the respondent/judgment debtor. Except 1/4th share in Ac.1.30 cents there is no other property standing in the name of the respondent/judgment debtor. The petitioner/decree holder failed to prove that the respondent/judgment debtor having sufficient means and neglected to pay the decretal amount. I do not find fault in the order impugned in the revision warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the CPC. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner/decree holder is at liberty to file fresh application in case the respondent/judgment debtor has acquiring assets subsequent to dismissal of E.P.No.101 of 2007 There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2011. YVL