IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.586 of 2010 BETWEEN Sri A.S.R. Prasad. …PETITIONER AND Sri J. Anil Kumar. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. A. JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent: MR. P. RAMCHANDRAN The Court made the following: - ORDER: Petitioner/decree holder obtained a decree for recovery of amount and put it to execution in E.P.No.118 of 2006 before the Court below. It appears that the respondent/judgment debtor has taken a stand in the EP that he has no means to pay the decree debt, as he has suffered losses in the business and has no capacity to pay the decretal amount. In order to establish that the respondent/judgment debtor has means and is intentionally evading the decree debt, the petitioner/decree holder filed an application being E.A.No.432 of 2008 under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking direction of the Court to the respondent/judgment debtor to produce the books of accounts, balance sheets of his business for the last ten years, bank passbooks maintained for his business and his personal savings bank account with various banks for the last ten years. That application was rejected by the executing Court, under the impugned order dated 18.08.2009, on the ground that such an application can be maintained pending a suit but not pending an execution petition. Questioning the said order, the present revision is filed. 2. Heard both the learned counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently contended that the conduct of the respondent/judgment debtor pending the suit and pending EP is required to be noticed whereupon it would be evident that the respondent/judgment debtor is just evading the decree debt and in order to establish the solvency of the respondent, the documents, as aforesaid, were sought for to prove the falsity of the claim of the respondent/judgment debtor. 4. Irrespective of the maintainability of such application in an execution petition, the prayer of the petitioner, if granted, would amount to compelling the respondent/judgment debtor to produce documents, which may virtually go against the interest of the respondent/judgment debtor himself. If the petitioner seeks to establish solvency of the respondent/judgment debtor, petitioner will have to lead evidence, oral and documentary, and will also have an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent, but compelling the respondent/judgment to produce documents, which may incriminate the respondent himself, is clearly not sustainable. The impugned order, therefore, does not deserve interference for the reasons, as mentioned above. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence, oral and documentary, as mentioned above and thereafter, the same liberty will be afforded to the respondent/judgment debtor also to rebut the said evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 22, 2011 DSK