IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.659 OF 2011 Date:15-07-2011 Between:- A. Girishwara Reddy S/o. A.Hanumantha Reddy … Petitioner And Boya Bisati Kessama D/o. Bisati Peddaiah and others … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.659 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 22-10-2010, in E.P. No.4 of 2009 in M.V.O.P. No.69 of 2007, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, whereunder and whereby arrest of the petitioner was ordered. 2. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni passed a decree in M.V.O.P. No.69 of 2007 directing the Judgment Debtor No.1, petitioner herein, to pay a compensation of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and with costs of Rs.2,539/- to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. In pursuance of the said decree, J.Dr.No.1 has not paid the decreetal amount. J.Dr. No.1 is a landlord and he owns a Tractor also and landed property besides the house and he was intentionally avoiding the payment of the decreetal amount. 3. J.Dr. No.1 filed a counter in the E.P., stating that the E.P. is not maintainable, that the M.V.O.P. is dismissed against 2nd respondent in the E.P. i.e. the Insurance Company but it is also liable to pay the amount as the vehicle was insured with it, that the health of J.Dr. No.1 is also not good, that he spent lot of money towards his treatment and he has no capacity to pay the amount, and therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition. 4. Basing on the averments, the executing Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1) Whether the Respondent has got means and capacity to pay the amount due under the decree or any substantial portion thereof? 2) Whether the Respondent neglected or evaded to pay the amount due under the Decree shown in E.P.? 3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for arrest of the Respondent for realization of the decreetal amount as prayed for? 5. On behalf of the Decree Holder, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of Judgment Debtors, R.Ws.1 and 2 were marked and Ex.X-1 was marked. 6. The executing Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that J.Dr. was having means to pay the amount, but he was intentionally avoiding to pay the same and hence, ordered for his arrest. Challenging the same, this revision is filed. 7. While granting stay in the CRP on 07-03-2011, this Court directed the petitioner to pay half of the decreetal amount within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of that order, but the petitioner did not comply that order. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner – J.Dr.No.1 is that the petitioner has no means to pay the decreetal amount and therefore, it is not a case of intentionally evading to pay the decreetal amount and hence, the impugned order may be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was having the landed property, house property and a tractor; that with a view to evade the decreetal amount, the J.Dr. No.1 is transferring all his property in the name of his wife and children; that the executing Court has rightly ordered arrest of the petitioner and hence, he prays to dismiss the CRP. 10. In a petition filed under Order - XXI Rules - 37 and 38 CPC, two requirements have to be satisfied by the Decree Holder. The first one is that the J.Dr. has means to pay the decreetal amount and the second one is that he wantonly and intentionally avoiding to pay the decreetal amount. If these two conditions are satisfied, the arrest of the J.Dr. can be ordered. 11. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would go to show that J.Dr. No.1 is having lands totaling to Acs.7.45 cents in B. Agraharam Village of Gonegandla Mandal. It is not in dispute that J.Dr.No.1 was having landed property and in order to avoid the payment, he is said to have executed Ex.X-1 Sale Deed in favour of his wife and children, after passing the decree. He knows about the direction given by the Tribunal directing him to pay the decreetal amount within a period of thirty days. Inspite of the same, he immediately executed Ex.X-1 gifting his properties to his wife and children. From that the conduct of J.Dr.No.1, it would clearly go to show that with a view to avoid payment of the decreetal amount, he must have executed Ex.X-1 gifting the property in favour of his wife and children. It is clearly stated that J.Dr. No.1, his wife and children are residing together in the same house. Such is the case, even though there is no need to execute any gift deed in favour of his wife and children, after passing of decree when he executed a gift deed, it may be inferred that with a view to avoid payment of the decreetal amount he executed the same. Therefore, considering these two aspects, the executing Court has rightly ordered arrest of the petitioner and detention in civil prison and that order needs no interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J July 15, 2011. KTL