THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1615 of 2008 Dated: 10.03.2011 Between: Kodivaka Subramanyam …..Petitioner And Pattapu Narsimham …..Respondent THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1615 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, Counsel for the petitioner. The point that arises for determination in the C.R.P. is whether the order dated 25.3.2008 of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore passed in E.P.No.293 of 2002 in O.S.No.1032 of 1998 directing the arrest of the petitioner herein, who is judgment debtor is correct. The petitioner/judgment debtor says that the said order is not correct, whereas the contention of the opposite party, i.e., the decree holder is that the order of the Executing Court is a well founded one. The amount claimed in the E.P. as on that date is stated to be Rs.45,000/- and it is based on a money decree. It is not necessary to go into other details. It may be noted that while discussing the rival claims of the parties in para No.6 of its order, the Executing Court, as a finding of fact, recorded that the judgment debtor himself in his evidence admitted that he received a sum of Rs.8 lakhs at the time of taking voluntary retirement from his employer and that he is also in receipt of a pension of Rs.1,500/- per month. The E.P. amount is only Rs.45,000/-. Basing on the above admission of the judgment debtor, the Executing Court concluded that the judgment debtor has got sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and that he was deliberately not paying it. I am of the opinion that the above finding of the Executing Court which is based on evidence does not call for interference by this Court. Sri P.Rajasekhar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that the decree holder did not lead any evidence from his side to show the means of the judgment debtor and having regard to the settled legal position that it is the burden of decree holder to prove the means of judgment debtor, the order of the Executing Court cannot be said to be correct. I am unable to agree with this contention. It may be noted that though it is the burden of the decree holder to prove about the means of the judgment debtor and his unwillingness to pay the decreetal amount nothing prevents the Court to arrive at the proper conclusion if the evidence on record permits it whether it is let in by judgment debtor or the decree holder to reach a conclusion about the means of the judgment debtor. In the present case, the Executing Court has clearly stated that the evidence of the judgment debtor himself shows that he has got the means in as much as he received Rs.8 lakhs at the time of his voluntary retirement from service. As the decreetal amount for which the E.P. was filed was for only Rs.40,000/- the inference drawn by the Executing Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. Accordingly, the point is decided against the petitioner. The C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 10.03.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1615 of 2008 DATE: 10.03.2011