KORADA NARAYANA RAO Vs. KUDARA MUTYALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed questioning the order of arrest dtd. 10/7/2018 in EP.No.20 of 2018 in OS.No.22 of 2016 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

(2.) Heard Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that an order under Order XXI, Rule 37 CPC., should not be passed for the mere asking and that the Court should be satisfied that the judgment debtor is possessed with sufficient means and he has deliberately avoiding paying the decretal debt. As it is an order that is only depriving of liberty of a person, learned counsel submits that the pre-conditions should be scrupulously followed. He points out that from the evidence that is introduced in this case nothing was elicited about the income or the assets of the judgment debtor. Therefore, he contends that the order of arrest should not have been passed without adequate evidence being available. He relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian reported in Jolly George Varghese v. The Bank of Cochin1. AIR 1980 SC 470 In reply thereto, learned counsel for the respondent argues that the judgment debtor admitted the liability and that the decree was passed. He states that the decree holder should be allowed to reap the benefits of his decree and that the judgment debtor is a regular driver working for a firm called Honey Travels. Therefore, he prays that the decree holder should be allowed to enjoy the fruits.