IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.736 OF 2025 Between: B. Gangadhara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Nunna Satyanarayana ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Heard Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition under Section 115 of C.P.C by the defendant/Judgment Debtor (JDr) in O.S.No.148 of 2016 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru. The plaintiff-Decree Holder (DHr) filed the E.P.No.13 of 2019 for recovery of an amount of Rs.85,680/- on 20.11.2018. The JDr did not comply with the decree. So the plaintiff filed the E.P.No.13 of 2019. He disclosed that the JDr was having the land in an extent of Ac.0.03 ½ cents in Varahapatnam Village of Kaikaluru Mandal and he was also having fish tanks and getting Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. 2 3. After receipt of notice, the JDr filed his counter denying the main and material allegations in the petition and submitted that he was an agricultural coolie and earning Rs.200/- per day and he had no movable or immovable properties of his own and the JDr used to get work for a period of six months and prayed to dismiss the Execution Petition. 4. During the course of enquiry, the DHr was examined as P.W.1 and one more witness Ulliboyina Satyanarayana as P.W.2. The JDr examined himself as R.W.1. No documents were marked on either side. 5. The Execution Court framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the DHr is able to prove that the JDr has got sufficient means and capacity to discharge the decretal debt and so also his willful avoidance to pay the decretal amount and if so, whether the arrest of JR can be ordered as prayed for?” 6. It returned the finding that the DHr discharged the initial burden by eliciting sufficient material during the cross examination of the JDr (R.W.1) that the JDr had got the properties. JDr in his cross examination deposed that he had got the properties in partition, though further added that he sold that property. The learned Execution Court on appreciation of the evidence, recorded that the JDr had the means to pay. He deposed that he sold the property but it was not substantiated by any evidence, except his deposition in the cross examination. Consequently, Execution 3 Court, passed the order for issue of arrest warrant against the JDr under Rule 38 of Order 21 C.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DHr failed to discharge the burden that the JDr had sufficient means to pay. He relied upon the cross examination that the JDr had sold the property. 8. I have considered the aforesaid submission and perused the material on record. 9. From the evidence of the JDr, as annexed and as also considered by the learned Execution Court, it is evident that the JDr got the property in partition. Though he said in the cross examination that he sold the property, but in the absence of any evidence to show the alienation or parting with the property it could not be established that the JDr sold the property which he acquired in partition. The initial burden on the DHr was discharged that the JDr had the capacity to pay the decretal amount, but the JDr failed to honour the decree. 10. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Execution Court that the JDr has the means to pay the decretal amount. Consequently, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 11. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 4 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. ____________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date:17.04.2025. Gk 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI 42 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.736 OF 2025 Date:17.04.2025. Gk