THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.706 of 2011 March 24, 2011 Between : Medikonda Siva Prakash, S/o.Yellappa Naidu … Petitioner AND Damarapati Bhaktavatsala Naidu, S/o.Doraswamy Naidu … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.706 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is Judgment Debtor (J.Dr) in O.E.P. No.43 of 2009. After obtaining the decree for payment of money in O.S.No.301 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, the respondent filed the E.P. under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the J.Dr in civil prison. He alleged that though the J.Dr has means and also having landed property in Mittapally village, intentionally avoided payment of the decretal amount. The petitioner opposed the E.P. inter alia, contending that he has no means to pay the decree debt. During the enquiry, D.Hr gave evidence as P.W.1. His evidence was corroborated by P.W.2. The J.Dr examined two witnesses including himself as R.W.1. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below ordered arrest of the J.Dr, aggrieved by which, the present civil revision petition is filed. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence properly in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has means to pay the decree debt. She would urge that the petitioner is eking out livelihood with great difficulty without any asset base and, therefore, he is unable to pay the decree debt. A perusal of the impugned order would show that as R.W.1 the petitioner denied the D.Hr’s allegation of having means. But the Court below found that the petitioner’s son was studying Engineering course and his daughter was studying in Nursing College and that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.2. When the finding of the Court below is based on evidence adduced before it, in a revision petition under Section 115 of CPC, this Court cannot appreciate the evidence unless the finding is perverse. This Court does not find any element of perversity in the impugned order. The civil revision petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ March 24, 2011. (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS