THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 34 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 18.11.2009 in E.P. No.89 of 2009 in O.S. No.244 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, 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.244 of 2007 before the court below for recovery of money and obtained decree on 16.3.2009, and filed the Execution Petition for realization of the debt stating that the petitioner/judgment debtor failed to pay the decreetal amount though he is having sufficient means, 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 decree holder failed to prove his case that the judgment debtor is getting income of Rs.500/- per day as Gold Smith; that, the judgment debtor has no movable or immovable or house property, and that he is a cooli getting Rs.70/- per day and residing in another worker’s house and he is not having means to pay the decreetal amount, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent/ decree holder. 5. Section 51 read with Order XXI Rule 37 CPC empower the court to send judgment debtor to civil prison when he willfully does not honour the decree with an intention to neglect or evade to pay the decreetal amount. 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. With regard to the means of the judgment debtor, except his oral assertion, the decree holder has not filed any revenue or municipal record to show that the judgment debtor is having landed or house property. At the same time, the judgment debtor, in his evidence as R.W.1, admitted that for the last 15 years, he has been working as Gold Smith, but he denied his income @ Rs.500/- per day. He further admitted that he is liable to pay the decreetal amount and stated that he may be granted three months’ time to discharge the same. Though not Rs.500/- per day, the judgment debtor would be earning a minimum of Rs.250/- per day as a Gold Smith. As the judgment debtor is doing Gold Smith work, it can safely be said that though not entire decreetal amount, but a substantial portion thereof, can be paid by the judgment debtor. The decree was passed on 16.3.2009. No efforts have been made by the judgment debtor to pay the decreetal amount after passing of the decree. This would go to show that the conduct of the judgment debtor is to evade the payment as along as he can do so. Since the decreetal amount is about Rs.35,000/-, had he paid atleast Rs.1,000/- per month after passing of the decree, he would have discharged a substantial portion of the decreetal amount by this time. Therefore, the necessary inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case is that the judgment debtor is wantonly evading to pay the amount. So, 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 decreetal amount. Therefore, the impugned order is kept under abeyance for a period of two months from today i.e. till 18.04.2011 to enable the petitioner to deposit the decreetal amount due together with costs and interest. On such deposit, the respondent/decree holder is entitled to withdraw to the same. If the petitioner fails to deposit the remaining decreetal amount on or before 18.04.2011, the impugned order shall be given effect to, without granting any further time and without entertaining any application for extension of time. 8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 17.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 34 OF 2010 17.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 34 OF 2010 17.2.2011 Between: Patnala Gupteswara Rao …Petitioner And Ponduru Ramu …Respondent