SURYA RAO V Vs. S SARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner. Respondents not represented.

(2.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in E.P.No.51/90 in O.S.No.95/87 dated 3-7-1995 holding that the Execution Petitioner failed to establish that the Judgment-Debtor was in possession of sufficient means for satisfying the decretal dues and hence not liable to be arrested.

(3.) The Executing Court in the 3rd part of para 11 of the impugned order observed that the Decree Holder in his cross-examination admitted that the Judgment-Debtor was a small farmer, that he was doing business in Kanchili with a daily turn over of Rs. 10,000/- and that the was paying Sales-tax as well as Income-tax for his business. The learned Judge further observed that the burden of proof shifted to the Decree Holder to show that the annual income of the 1st Judgment-Debtor other than agricultural income was more than Rs.1,200/-; but the Decree Holder merely stated in his examination-in-chief that the 1st Judgment-Debtor was doing business and that he was earning a profit of more than Rs.100/- per day from his business. Further, according to the learned Judge, the Decree Holder also stated that the Judgment-Debtor was financially sound to discharge the decretal dues, but he did not care to say what that business was and what was the financial soundness of the 1st Judgment-Debtor. He also did not mention about the annual income of the 1st Judgment-Debtor. Except his oral evidence without any reference to any particular business, the learned Judge recorded his satisfaction in the impugned order that the 1st Judgment-Debtor was a small farmer and that he had no annual income exceeding Rs.1,200/- from sources other than the agricultural income and, therefore, the learned Judge recorded his finding that the Execution Petitioner failed to establish that the Judgment-Debtor had sufficient means of income and on that ground he was pleased to dismiss the Execution Petition.