CHELLA SIVA KUMAR REDDY Vs. KUDUMULA SURENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 176 of 2001 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, nellore, against the respondent, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,03,853/ -. The suit was decreed. After the decree became final, the petitioner filed E. P. No. 158 of 2004, under rues 37 and 38 of Order 21 C. P. C. , with a prayer to issue warrant of arrest against the respondent. He pleaded that the respondent is possessed of adequate movable and immovable properties and despite the same, he did not honour the commitment under the decree. The E. P. was opposed by the respondent and he urged that he is not possessed of any property. Through its order, dated 03. 07. 2006, the trial Court dismissed the E. P. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) SRI S. V. Muni Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client placed sufficient and reliable material before the Executing Court to prove that the respondent is possessed of adequate means, and still, the E. P. was dismissed. He contends that the Executing Court disbelieved even the registered documents and admitted signatures of the respondent and virtually reduced the decree in the suit to a waste paper.

(3.) SRI A. V. S. Satish Babu, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner failed to prove the allegation that the respondent had adequate means to pay the decretal amount and that no exception can be taken to the order under revision. He contends that vague and abstract allegations made by the petitioner cannot constitute the basis to send the respondent to civil prison.