PTNANA VENKATARAMANA Vs. MUTNURU VENKATARAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O.S.No.243 of 2003 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, against the petitioner, for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,600/-. After contest by the petitioner herein, the trial Court decreed the suit on 15.09.2004. The decree became final, since the petitioner did not prefer any appeal. Thereupon, the respondent filed E.P.No.l of 2005 under Rule 37 of Order XXI C.P.C., stating that despite possessing adequate means, the petitioner did not pay the decretal amount. He ultimately prayed for the arrest of the petitioner. After following the procedure prescribed, the trial Court allowed the E.P. on 05.12.2005, recording a finding to the effect that the despite possessing adequate means, the petitioner did not pay the decretal amount and ultimately directed his detention in civil prison. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition. Sri K.Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except making a vague and general observation that the petitioner had adequate means, the executing Court did not support its conclusion, with any material or reasons. He contends that the petitioner is having only a share in the properties mentioned in the order and that he is drawing a salary of hardly Rs.3,000/- per month. He contends that if the respondent was of the view that the petitioner is possessed of any properties, it was always open lo him to proceed against them,

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner' had deliberately omitted lo honour the decree and that the order under revision does not suffer from any legal

(3.) or factual infirmity. It is not in dispute that the decree against the petitioner became final. The respondent filed E.P. under Rule 37 of Order XXI C.P.C. The procedure prescribed under Order XXI C.P.C., in this regard, mandates that the judgment debtor must depose before the executing Court in the presence of the decree holder. The enquiry, in this regard, is limited to the furnishing of information about the different items of property. The reason is that it is only on being satisfied that despite possessing adequate means, the judgment debtor did not comply with the decree, that the executing Court can proceed with the matter. The enquiry, at thiis stage, cannot, however, be compared with the appreciation of evidence in the trial of the suit. Once the decree holder alleges that the judgment debtor possesses an item of property, it is for the latter to disprove it, failing which an inference would be drawn to the effect that he possesses adequate means, though not the property as an absolute owner. The petitioner thoroughly failed in this front and had virtually assumed the role of a spectator. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client may be extended the benefit of paying the decretal amount in instalments. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposed his request, on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed by this Court, while granting interim order on 30.06.2006.