IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.NO.1799 OF 2007 20-12-2010 Between:- D.Parvathamma .. Petitioner And B.Mohan Reddy ..Respondent ORDER:- The petitioner is the decree holder. She filed a suit for recovery of certain amount from the judgment debtor. The suit was decreed. The decree holder later laid E.P.No.959 of 2005 under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C for the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in the civil prison. The decree holder claimed that the judgment debtor has got means to honour the decree and has not been honouring the decree despite his capacity. The judgment debtor laid a counter claiming that he did not have means to honour the decree. The decree holder examined herself as the only witness. Although the impugned order reads that the judgment debtor did not examine himself, the record shows that the judgment debtor examined himself as R.W.1. As against the evidence of decree holder as P.W.1 that the judgment debtor has house property and cash, the judgment debtor, as R.W.1, denied the same. It is for the decree holder to establish that the judgment debtor has means to discharge the decree and has failed to do so before the decree holder can seek for the arrest of the judgment debtor. Barring for the ipse dixit of the decree holder as P.W.1, there is no evidence to show that the judgment debtor has means to execute the decree. Sri A.Jaya Sankara Reddy, learned counsel for the decree holder, drew my attention to the cross examination of the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor admitted in the cross examination that he filed O.S.No.859 of 2006 for recovery of monies from the defendants therein. Admittedly, the said suit was not disposed of. As on today, judgment debtor, therefore, does not hold the decree in O.S.No.859 of 2006 in his favour. Barring for the same, which is an admission from the judgment debtor himself, there is no evidence from the decree holder to establish the means of the judgment debtor Where the decree holder failed to establish the means of the judgment debtor, the decree holder is not entitled to execute the decree under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. The finding of the Execution Court, therefore, is justified in dismissing the execution petition. There are no merits in this revision. The revision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. The Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. It is needless to state that the decree holder is at liberty to execute the decree against the properties of the judgment debtor, subject to the rules of limitation. No costs. _______________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 20th December 2010 AMD