THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3196 of 2010 DATE: 24-06-2011 Between: D.Munirathnam .. Petitioner And E.Jayalakshmamma and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3196 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the arrest dated 09.07.2010 in E.P.No.143 of 2009 by the judgment-debtor No.1 in O.S.No.153 of 2001 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. A decree for money was obtained by the decree holder, who is a lady and the Execution Petition was filed for recovery of Rs.1,61,416/- and also the costs. The Execution Petition was filed on 31.10.2006. The judgment- debtor was set exparte on 18.04.2007 and thereafter the decree was transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor as per the orders of the District Judge, Chittoor dated 26.10.2009. Thereafter several adjournments were taken and the counter was not filed but however a counter affidavit is said to have been filed on 14.06.2008 pleading that there was a compromise between the decree holder in the suit and also the decree holder in O.S.No.1229 of 2001, wherein as per the terms of the compromise Rs.1,20,000/- is to be paid and accordingly, Rs.70,000/- was paid to the credit of E.P.No.41 of 2006 and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid on 13.07.2007 and the balance of Rs.25,000/- was deposited in the month of June, 2008. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the decree has been satisfied by virtue of the compromise and the lower Court without taking into consideration, has passed the order of arrest on 09.07.2010. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plea of the judgment debtor about the said compromise is not raised before the Court below by filing any compromise memo except relying upon the part satisfaction memo signed by the decree holder. It is the contention of the judgment debtor that the lower Court should have verified the above fact of compromise. Whenever, a plea of compromise is set up by the judgment debtor, it is for him to establish the same. The revision petitioner claims to have filed an application on 16.06.2008 under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “CPC”) to record full satisfaction of the decree and dismiss the Execution Petition. It is his grievance that without determining this application, arrest of the judgment-debtor No.1 was ordered. The affidavit shows that the compromise is said to have been effected by the learned counsel for the decree holder also by name P.Damodar Naidu. But the endorsement on this application shows that the decree holder’s counsel refused to take notice without numbering the petition. Therefore, it is not a case where the allegations in the affidavit are accepted as true by the learned counsel for the decree holder, to support the claim of the judgment debtor that there was a compromise. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the claim of the judgment debtor that he has satisfied the decree, cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. It is not a case, where the judgment debtor is pleading that he has no means to pay the decreetal amount since he is only pleading about a compromise. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, subject to the determination of the truthfulness or otherwise of the compromise pleaded by the judgment- debtor the order of arrest passed by the lower Court is stayed on the condition of the judgment debtor depositing a further sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and the lower Court shall enquire into the alleged compromise and decide the matter within one month after deposit of Rs.50,000/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that there is no reasoned order passed by the lower Court in ordering arrest of the judgment debtor and there is no mention of the essential requisite of having sufficient means and also an intention to defeat and delay the decree and consequently the order of the lower Court suffers from infirmity. Evidently, to know the intention of the judgment debtor whether he is interested in complying with the decree or not and whether he is interested in avoiding payment of the decreetal amount, the conduct of the party has to be taken into consideration. In the earlier E.P.No.38 of 2006 he appeared through counsel on 18.12.2006 for a long time. Thereafter he did not appear and ultimately he was set ex parte on 12.04.2007. Subsequently, when the matter was transferred to the other Court also for a longer time, it is quite clear that the judgment debtor was not even attending the Court. He was set ex parte and earlier the ex parte order also was set ex parte. Therefore, the mere fact that the judgment debtor has filed an application that there was a compromise and the Court has not considered it and the personal liberty of the judgment debtor is put to hazard, cannot be accepted. If really there was a compromise, both the parties should have appeared before the Court and asked the Court to record the compromise. In fact the affidavit, said to have been filed along with the petition to record full satisfaction, does not show as to when the alleged compromise has taken place. These are all tactics, which warrant an interference that the judgment debtor is intending to defeat and delay the execution of the decree. Therefore, though the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge does not show specifically the conduct of the party. The order dated 09.07.2010 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor is as follows: Heard D.Hr. Perused the record, already the J.Dr. has paid part of amount and going by filing petition after petition avoiding payment. The D.Hr. is senior citizen, aged woman in spite of orders as J.Dr. failed to pay the amount. Hence, warrant of arrest of J.Dr. Call on 06.08.2010. It clearly goes to show that though the judgment debtor paid part of the amount, he was going on filing petitions avoiding payment. It does not mean that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor has not applied his mind before ordering the arrest. The lower Court was also taken into consideration that the decree holder is a senior citizen and an aged woman, who has been put to unnecessary hazard. Therefore, the order of warrant of arrest passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmity and in view of the directions given above the lower Court can enquire into the matter and the judgment debtor has to deposit the decreetal amount as directed above. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 24-06-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3196 of 2010 DATE: 24-06-2011 MR