( 1 ) ORDER directing the arrest of the revision petitioner, passed by the executing Court is challenged in this revision.

( 2 ) IN execution of a money decree obtained by the respondent against the revision petitioner, he filed a petition seeking arrest of the revision petitioner inter alia alleging that in spite of his owning a house worth rs. 50,00,000/-atgandhinagar,nellore from which he is receiving a monthly rent of rs. 7,000/- by letting out a portion thereof as a go-down, and another building at Jawaharlal road, Nellore, in which he let out 10 shop rooms in the ground floor on a monthly rent of rs. 5,000/- per each shop and thereby earning rs. 50,000/- per month as rents from that building, besides running a lodge under the name and style of swagath Lodge in the first floor of the said building earning about rs. 10,000/- p. m. from that lodge and possessing other valuable sites at Nellore, is wilfully evading to pay the amount due to him.

( 3 ) REVISION petitioner filed a counter denying his letting out a portion of his building on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/- for go-down purpose and contending that the said house is being used by his family members for residence and that he let out a portion thereof to L. Niranjan Reddy, his relative, who filed o. S. No. 1330 of 2003 and is depositing rs. 1,000/- p. m. as its rent into Court and that the rent being derived by him from the building at Jawaharlal Road, is only Rs. 1,000/- p. m. from five tenants, but not Rs. 5,000/- p. m. as alleged and that the remaining five shop rooms therein were alienated to third parties under registered documents and that the rents from those tenants also are being collected by his other creditors, and as the swagath Lodge is running in losses and as several of his creditors had obtained orders of attachment and as his son filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in the properties, and as he is not owning any other site and is living at the mercy of his mother-in-law, and is owing about Rs. 2,50,000/- as house tax for the swagath Lodge and othertaxes to the Nellore municipality, he has no means or capacity to discharge the amount due to the respondent and since the respondent who is alleging that he owns several properties, can proceed against those properties, he is not liable to be arrested.

( 4 ) IN support of his case, respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and marked ex. A-1, a registration extract of the partition deed dated 28-11-1999 executed by the revision petitioner and his family members. In support of his case, revision petitioner examined himself as R. W. 1, but did not adduce any documentary evidence. Basing on the evidence on record the executing court ordered arrest of the revision petitioner on payment of process by the respondent.

( 5 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the failure of the executing Court in property understanding the purport of the various judgments cited before it resulted in its reaching an erroneous conclusion and contended that inasmuch as the respondent could proceed against the properties allegedly owned by the revision petitioner, who has no means to pay the decree debt at present, as the evidence of the revision petitioner as r. W. 1 shows that he is indebted to several others and that those creditors had attached his properties and that he is living at the mercy of his mother-in-law, the order of the executing Court is liable to be set aside as his arrest would curtail his personal liberty. He placed strong reliance on t. Doraswamy Reddy v. K. Kodanda Naidu v. Ganesa Nadar v. K. Chellathai Amma, kalidindi Rama Raju (JD) v. Vijaya Bank (Nationalised), Branch Manager, bhimavaram, W. G. District, and k. Vijayakumarv. N, Gururaja Rao in support of the contentions raised by him.

( 6 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that since the counter filed by the revision petitioner itself establishes his ownership o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document