THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5782 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 08.07.2009 in E.P.No.116 of 2007 in O.S. No.48 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, whereunder and whereby Execution Petition filed by the respondent/decree holder was allowed ordering issue of arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). 2. The respondent/decree holder filed Original Suit No.48 of 2005 before the court below for recovery of money and obtained decree on 20.06.2007, and as the petitioner/judgment debtor failed to pay the decreetal amount, filed the Execution Petition for realization of the same, and to order his arrest and detention in civil prison if he fails to repay the said amount. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is aged about 60 years, and that other alternative mode of executing the decree is available to the respondent by way of attaching the movable properties belonging to the petitioner, but the same has not been done; that the petitioner has no means to repay the decreetal amount, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner is having wet land admeasuring more than Ac.6.00, and also 40 handloom machines, and getting income of Rs.2.00 lakhs per annum, but, he is intentionally evading to repay the decreetal amount, and considering these aspects, the trial court rightly ordered his arrest, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. In considering an application for arrest of a judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC, two requirements are to be established by the decree holder viz. the judgment has sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and that he is wantonly or willfully avoiding to pay the same. If these two ingredients are satisfied, then the judgment debtor is liable to be sent to civil prison. 6. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1, would clearly go to show that the judgment debtor is having landed property in his name. The evidence of P.W.1 also shows that the judgment debtor is running business. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the judgment debtor is having sufficient means to discharge the decreetal amount. Further more, in pursuance of the interim order dated 3.12.2009 of this Court in C.R.P. M.P. No.7931 of 2009, judgment debtor deposited 1/3rd of the decreetal amount. Except the oral evidence of R.W.1, there is no other evidence to show that the judgment debtor is not having sufficient means to discharge the decreetal amount. Exs.R1 and R2, even assuming to be true and correct, at best, they show that the judgment debtor was not keeping good health for some time. In view of the fact that he is having movable and immovable properties, the only inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances, is that he is willfully evading to pay the amount. Therefore, the executing court rightly ordered for arrest of the petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 7. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to deposit the remaining decreetal amount. Therefore, the impugned order is kept under abeyance till 22.04.2011 to enable the petitioner to deposit the remaining decreetal amount. On such deposit of balance decreetal amount, the respondent/decree holder is entitled to withdraw to the same. If the petitioner fails to deposit the remaining decreetal amount on or before 22.04.2011, the impugned order shall be given effect to. 8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 21.1.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5782 OF 2009 21.1.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5782 OF 2009 21.1.2011 Between: Rangana Choudaiah …Petitioner And M.Nagula Reddy …Respondent