THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.931 OF 2003 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 12.12.2002 in E.P. No.247 of 2000 in O.S. No.72 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, whereunder and whereby Execution Petition filed by the respondent/decree holder was allowed ordering issue of arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). 2. The respondent/decree holder filed Original Suit No.72 of 2000 before the court below against the petitioner/judgment debtor for recovery of money and obtained decree, and as the petitioner failed to pay the decreetal amount, filed the Execution Petition against him for realization of the same, and to order his arrest and detention in civil prison if he fails to pay the said amount. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not doing business, but he is an agricultural labourer, and he has no means to pay the decreetal amount, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order of arrest. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that, the petitioner is having Ac.3.44 cents of land and getting income from it, but, he is intentionally evading to pay the decreetal amount, and considering these aspects, the trial court rightly ordered his arrest, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In considering an application for arrest of a judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC, two requirements are to be established by the decree holder viz. the judgment has sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and that he is wantonly or willfully avoiding to pay the same. If these two ingredients are satisfied, then the judgment debtor is liable to be sent to civil prison. 7. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1-certified copy of No.3 Adangal, would clearly go to show that the petitioner is having Ac.3.44 cents of land. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the petitioner/judgment debtor is having sufficient means to discharge the decreetal amount. In view of the fact that he is having immovable properties and has not discharged the decreetal amount, the only inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances, is that he is willfully evading to pay the amount. Therefore, the executing court rightly ordered for arrest of the petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to deposit the decreetal amount. Therefore, the impugned order is kept under abeyance till 28.03.2011 to enable the petitioner to deposit the decreetal amount. On such deposit of decreetal amount, the respondent is entitled to withdraw to the same. If the petitioner fails to deposit the decreetal amount on or before 28.3.2011, the impugned order shall be given effect to. 9. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 27.1.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 931 OF 2003 27.1.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 931 OF 2003 27.1.2011 Between: Mandem Chandrasekhar Reddy …Petitioner And M.Jayarami Reddy …Respondent