THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.R.P.NO.136 OF 2002 ORDER The civil revision petition is ﬁled against the order dated 10-07-2001 passed in E.P.No.16 of 1999 in O.S.No.39 of 1999. The petitioner herein is the plaintiﬀ and decree holder in E.P.No.16 of 1999. He ﬁled a petition under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 CPC seeking arrest of the respondent for recovery of the decretal amount on the ground that even though the judgment debtor has means to pay the decretal amount, he is evading to pay the amount. After due enquiry, the trial Court rejected the contention of the decree holder on the ground that he failed to prove the means of the judgment debtor. Being aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder urged that in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the judgment debtor, he stated that he was prepared to pay Rs.200/- per month and discharge the debt and that assertion may be taken into consideration and the relief may be granted accordingly. Now the point for consideration is whether the order dated 10-07-2001 of the trial Court is sustainable. It is the contention of the decree holder that the judgment debtor owns Ac. 4-00 cents of land and was also doing cloth business, but he is evading to pay the decree debt. It is the contention of the judgment debtor that he did not possess any property and that he was eking his livelihood by doing coolie work and not able to earn any money due to ill health. To prove that the judgment debtor was having means, none were examined and no documents were marked. It is for the decree holder to prove the means of the judgment debtor to get the relief under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 CPC. In this case, the decree holder failed to prove the means of the judgment debtor. Simply because the judgment debtor stated that he is prepared to discharge the decree debt @ Rs.200/- per month, it cannot be said that the decree holder is entitled to the relief under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 CPC unless it is established that judgment debtor had means. No iota of evidence is placed by the decree holder to prove that the judgment debtor has suﬃcient means to pay the decree debt. Therefore, the trial Court well discussed the evidence and held that the decree holder failed to prove the means of the judgment debtor. Hence, I see no reason to diﬀer with the finding of the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the decree holder may take appropriate steps for recovery of the decree amount from the judgment debtor, if he is otherwise entitled to, as per law. ________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J rkk Dated: 11-11-2011