IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH (28TH) DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2164 of 2007 Between: Someswaraswamyvari Devasthanam, Lingaboinacherla … Petitioner And: Balam Peddiraju … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2164 of 2007 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.08.2006 in EP No.13 of 2006 in OS No.11 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari district, wherein, the execution petition filed by the petitioner-decree-holder against the JDr/respondent was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner-temple filed suit and obtained a decree for recovery of certain amount due towards value of the maktha. In execution of the decree, the petitioner filed EP No.13 of 2006 seeking arrest of the respondent/JDr on the ground that in spite of having sufficient means, the respondent is evading to pay the decretal amount. The respondent-JDr would contend that he has no means to pay the decretal amount and he is an agricultural coolie. 4. Before the trial Court, PWs.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent examined himself as RW.1 but no documents were marked on his side. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the petitioner/decree-holder failed to show that the JDr is having any lands or assets or any income as alleged. The burden squarely lies on the petitioner/decree-holder to establish that the JDr is having means and in spite of having sufficient means, he is evading to discharge the debt. The decree-holder has not chosen to adduce any evidence to show that the JDr is having any assets, yielding income as alleged. In the absence of such evidence, the plea of the decree-holder that the JDr is having sufficient means remains unsubstantiated. When once the decree-holder failed to establish that the JDr is having sufficient means to discharge the decree debt and in spite of having means he is evading to discharge the debt, the issuance of warrant of arrest under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC is not called for. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It is however open to the decree-holder to proceed against the properties, if any of the JDr and also to proceed against the person of the JDr in the event of JDr acquiring having any assets or income subsequently, which is sufficient to discharge the debt. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed with liberty as stated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 28.01.2011 bss