HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4720 OF 2011 DATED 30TH NOVEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Manne Vijaya Kumar …….Petitioner and Pepeti Satyanarayana …… Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4720 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in the suit in O.S.No. 253 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiﬀ and thereafter he initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No. 122 of 2010 under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC for realization of the decreetal amount. The execution petition was contested by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor. The Court below by its elaborate order under revision allowed the impugned Execution Petition, but, issuance of arrest warrant against the judgment debtor on payment of process was subject to the result of the Insolvency petition ﬁled by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor, which is pending consideration before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. Hence the present revision petition by the judgment debtor in O.S.No. 253 of 2008. Heard. Perused the case file. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in as much as the revision petitioner/J.Dr. has ﬁled the Insolvency petition against the respondent/decree holder and others and the same is pending consideration on the ﬁle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, the impugned execution petition ﬁled by the respondent/D.Hr. is not maintainable. He further submitted that the revision petitioner has no suﬃcient means to pay the decreetal amount and as he is not able to maintain himself and eke out livelihood, he ﬁled Insolvency Petition under Section 74 of the Provincial Solvency Act. He contended that institution of the impugned execution petition is only to harass the revision petitioner and that no oral or documentary evidence was adduced to show that the revision petitioner/J.Dr. has means to honour the decree and is evading the payment of the decreetal amount . Admittedly the suit in O.S.No. 253 of 2008 was decreed in favour of the respondent/D.Hr. on 4.3.2010. The said suit was contested by the revision petitioner/J.Dr. The respondent/D.Hr. ﬁled the impugned execution petition to realize the decreetal amount from the revision petitioner/J.Dr. While it was the case of the revision petitioner that he does not have suﬃcient means to maintain himself and to honour the decree by paying the decreetal amount and that he had already ﬁled Insolvency Petition under Section 74 of the Provincial Insolvency Act against the respondent/D.Hr. and others and the same is pending consideration before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram; it was the case of the respondent/D.Hr. that the petitioner/J.Dr. has suﬃcient means to honour the decree and is deliberately avoiding to pay the decreetal amount. He stated that the revision petitioner/J.Dr. is having own car and is earning amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. He further stated that the petitioner/J.Dr. is having ﬁsh tank in an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in R.S.No. 281/5 of Kandukur village, Kaikulur Mandal, Krishna District, through which he is earning income of Rs.30,000/- per year and is earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing ﬁnance business. Even during the cross- examination of the respondent/Dr.Holder, he deposed to the aforesaid earnings of the revision petitioner/J.Dr. However, the revision petitioner/J.Dr. before the Court below did not choose to deny the said evidence. As the petitioner/J.Dr. failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the respondent/D.Hr. an inference that can be drawn is that the revision petitioner/J.Dr has suﬃcient means to honour the decree and is only intentionally evading to pay the decreetal amount to the respondent/D.Hr. In as much as the Insolvency Petition ﬁled by the revision petitioner/J.Dr. is pending consideration before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, the Court below while allowing the execution petition, rightly observed that the issuance of arrest warrant against the judgment debtor on payment of process was subject to the result of the Insolvency petition ﬁled by the revision petitioner/J.Dr. In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner in Jolly George Varghese Vs. The Bank of Cochin (AIR 1980 SC 470), the issue that arose for consideration before the Apex Court was in the circumstances of that case whether the personal freedom of the judgment-debtors can be held in ransom until repayment of the debt, and whether Section 51 read with Order 21, Rule 37, C.P.C. do warrant such a step, as the provision of law is constitutional, if tested on the touchstone of fair procedure laid down Article 21 and in conformity with the inherent dignity of the human person in the light of Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In that case the debtors were in distress because of the blanket distraint of their properties in as much as their properties were under attachment pursuant to the earlier money decrees suffered by them and the Court below without conducting proper investigation as to the capacity of the debtors to discharge the decreetal amounts, dismissed the applications of the debtors. In those circumstances, the Apex Court while declining to go into merits or otherwise of the issue, remitted the matter for de novo enquiry. The facts of the said case are entirely diﬀerent to the facts of the case on hand and as such it is of no avail to the case of the revision petitioner. Considering the material on record, the Court below rightly allowed the Execution Petition ﬁled by the respondent/D.Hr. by its order under revision. I do not see any inﬁrmity or illegality in the order under revision warranting inference in this Civil Revision Petition. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 30TH NOVEMBER, 2011. Msnro