THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1152 of 2011 April 01, 2011 Between: K.Chinna Babu, S/o.Venkataiah ... Petitioner And M.Bhagyalakshmi, W/o.M.R.Hari Babu ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1152 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 22.2.2011 in E.P.No.142 of 2009 in O.S.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The petitioner is Judgment Debtor. He is an employee in Chittoor Municipality. The respondent instituted the suit for recovery of amount. The same was decreed. The Decree Holder filed E.P.No.136 of 2008, which was dismissed on 09.11.2009. The said E.P. was filed for attachment of salary of the petitioner. As the salary was not sufficient to order of attachment in compliance with the provisions of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the attachment was denied and the E.P. was dismissed. The respondent again filed E.P.No.142 of 2009 for arrest of the petitioner and sending him to civil prison for realizing the E.P. amount. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner had means to discharge the decree debt, but disobeyed the same. The petitioner contested the same. The enquiry was conducted and P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 were examined. Considering the evidence, the Court below disposed of the respondent’s E.P. granting one month’s time to the petitioner failing which he shall be arrested by issue of arrest warrant. In this civil revision petition, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that when E.P. No.136 of 2008 was dismissed, the Court below ought not to have allowed the E.P. especially when the petitioner has no sufficient means. He would urge that the earlier E.P. was dismissed as the salary drawn by the petitioner in his capacity as Class-IV employee was not sufficient to discharge the liability. Nextly he would contend that the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction properly. The Decree Holder’s E.P. for attachment of salary was denied on the ground that the salary was not sufficient for the purpose of attachment. In the present E.P., the petitioner pleaded that his home- take salary is Rs.396/- including deductions of Rs.4,212/- although he draws Rs.7,922/- and, therefore, he cannot be arrested in execution of the decree. The Court did not accept the plea relying on the statement made by the petitioner himself, in his deposition as R.W.1, that his actual salary is Rs.12,800/-. Whether the Judgment Debtor has sufficient means or not is a question of fact, and considering the evidence, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the Judgment Debtor is avoiding to discharge the amount. No interference is called for. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 01, 2011 YS