E MURUGAIAH Vs. C EKAMBARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order passed in E.P.No.13 of 1992 in O.S.No.174 of 1989 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge passed the impugned order of arrest of the judgment-debtor for non-payment of the decretal amount.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is a small farmer and the lower Court should have given the benefit of Act. No.7 of 1977. He also submitted that the requirements of Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not met to order for the arrest etc.,

(3.) I see considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel. However the petitioner could not establish that he is a small farmer. The learned counsel (sic. Judge) has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the case of the petitioner herein on this aspect and the finding does not warrant intereference. Further the finding that the petitioner is having sufficient means to pay the debt is also based upon acceptable evidence. Still the requirements of Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not made out is this case. In this context it is useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows: