THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.598 of 2011 March 24, 2011 Between : Mullaguri Bhaskar Naidu, S/o.M.Sreeramulu Naidu … Petitioner AND Virupakshi Guruva Reddy, S/o.V.Venkata Reddy … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.598 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is Judgment Debtor (J.Dr) in E.P. No.126 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. He filed instant revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2011 allpwing the E.P. The respondent filed suit being O.S.No.627 of 2008 for recovery of a sum of ` 2,38,761/-. The suit was decreed on 15.4.2009. He instituted the E.P. for an amount of ` 2,57,526/- under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of CPC, for realisation of the decretal amount by arrest and detention of the J.Dr. The petitioner opposed the E.P. contending that he does not possess any movable or immovable property to satisfy the decree and that he is not doing any business. The only issue before the Court below was whether the petitioner neglected to satisfy the decree even though he has means to do it. The respondent gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1. The petitioner entered the box as R.W.1 and deposed that he is not doing any business and that he is not a partner in any firm. The Court below considered the evidence and relying on Ex.A1 as well as the cross-examination of R.W.1 came to the conclusion that the petitioner has means to pay the decretal amount. Accordingly the E.P. was allowed. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below erred in relying on Ex.A1 and failed to apply the ratio in the decision of the Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese v Bank of Cochin[1]. The civil revision petition is wholly misconceived. The finding of fact that the petitioner has means to pay the decretal amount is unassailable. While referring to the evidence of P.W.1 (the petitioner herein), the Court below recorded as follows. According to the chief affidavit filed by him, he is not doing business and the said Firm is not existing and he has not having any money in his account in any bank and though the decree holder knowing fully well his financial capacity, D.Hr got filed this execution petition to harass him. In his cross-examination he stated that the signature on certified copy of Ex.A1 and photograph is that of himself. However he has not filed any document to show that he has closed his business. He can file statement of account from his bank, but at present he did not file into Court. A suggestion is put to him that he has got means to pay the decretal amount, but he is neglecting and evaded to pay the same. On scrutinizing the evidence of R.W.1, except he denied that he has not doing any business, but he did not file any proof to show the same. Even at least not pleaded in the counter that the decree holder has not approached him before filing of execution petition and requesting him to pay the decretal amount. In the absence of the same, it makes me to believe that the judgment debtor has neglected to pay the decretal amount inspite of having sufficient means. The reasoning by the Court below is sound and there is proper appreciation of evidence. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ March 24, 2011. (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS [1] AIR 1980 SC 470