BATHULA RAVI KUMAR REDDY Vs. SHAIK MASTHAN VALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S.No.130 of 2006 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole for recovery of amount from the respondent on the strength of Katha. The suit was decreed and the decree became final. Since the respondent did not comply with the decree, the petitioner filed E.P.No.495 of 2008 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. for arrest of the respondent and detain in civil prison. On receiving the notice in the E.P., the respondent entered appearance. He filed a counter denying the allegation of the petitioner. He stated that he has no means to discharge the decreetal amount and that he is dependant upon his father. He has also stated that he undertakes agriculture as and when instructed by his father. The executing Court dismissed the E.P. through order, dated 12.10.2009. Hence, this revision.

(2.) Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is possessed of adequate means and still, he is avoiding obligation under the decree. He submits that the respondent admitted in his deposition that his family is owning Acs.3.50 cents of land and that their family is running a business, which yields to Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- per day and in that view of the matter, the executing Court ought not to have dismissed the E.P.

(3.) Sri T.K.Basha Vali, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that except making bald allegations that the respondent is possessed of means, the petitioner did not prove the averments in the E.P.