K MUNIRATHNAM Vs. BHASKAR NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O.S. No.233 of 2002, in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decree on 7-1-2003. Since the petitioner did not satisfy the decree, the respondent filed EP.No.33 of 2003. The respondent prayed for arrest of the petitioner, pleading that though the latter had sufficient means to comply with the decree, he is deliberately avoiding to do so The petitioner resisted the E.P. Through its order, dated 5-2-2004, the executing Court recorded a finding that the petitioner had sufficient means, but he is evading to satisfy the decree. Accordingly, it directed arrest of the petitioner and detention in civil prison. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.

(2.) Sri Meherchand Nori, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client does not have the means to satisfy the decree. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in K. Harikrishna v Dr L Raghunatha Rao, 2004 (4) ALD 463 = 2004 (5) ALT 52, he contends that the executing Court did not follow the prescribed procedure.

(3.) Sri P. Jagdish Chandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner and the respondent were examined by the executing Court, before the order under revision came to be passed He contends that the petitioner had admitted that he possessed some property, and in addition to that, he is holding several movable and immovable properties.