THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.427 of 2011 DT.16.09.2011 Between: A.Dattatreya Sarma s/o Subrahmanyam … Petitioner And Anna Rama Rao @ A.V.Rama Rao s/o Hanumaiah … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri U.V.Suresh Kumar Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.427 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor, who suffered a decree dated 27-3-2010 in O.S.No.122 of 2009, on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur for a sum of Rs.86,000/-. As the decretal amount was not paid, the decree-holder/respondent herein filed E.P.No.254 of 2010 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C seeking to arrest and send the petitioner herein to civil prison. The Executing Court by the impugned order dated 31-01-2011, after hearing and examining both the parties, while rejecting the contention of the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of passing the order in the E.P, held that as the petitioner never pleaded his insufficiency of means to pay the decretal amount and in fact he is working as a public servant in Malaria Department and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner is not having sufficient source of income and that he intentionally evading to discharge the decretal amount, and accordingly allowed the E.P and issued arrest warrant against the petitioner on payment of process. Questioning the same, this revision is filed. This Court on 11-2-2011 while issuing notice before admission, granted interim stay subject to the condition the petitioner deposits 1/4th of the decretal amount with costs, within four weeks from that date, failing which the interim order stands vacated. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner paid the decretal amount by settling the issue vide Mediators Nama report dated 29-4-2011. The decree-holder filed application seeking to vacate the interim order contending that the averments made by the petitioner after filing the C.R.P with regard to his payment of the decretal amount as outside settlement is false and incorrect, and in fact the petitioner has not paid any decretal amount. It is stated that when the petitioner has not paid 1/4th decretal amount as ordered by this Court on 11-02-2011, the question of paying the entire decretal amount under outside settlement does not arise. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to express any opini0on with regard to the said plea of the petitioner inasmuch as any compromise after passing a decree shall be through the Court only, but not outside the Court. However, the impugned order is only under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of the C.P.C, and thereafter, the petitioner shall be brought before the Court after arrest and the executing Court shall conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 40 C.P.C before sending him to civil prison. At that stage, it is open for the petitioner to advance his defence. The revision is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.ESWARAIAH,J) DATE: 16.09.2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.427 of 2011 DATE: 16.09.2011 GRK