( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, sompeta dated 12-8-1999 passed in E. P. No. 4 of 1992 in O. S. No. 35 of 1985 under which on the petition of the decreeholder, arrest of the judgment-debtor has been ordered for executing a money decree.

( 2 ) THE contention on behalf of the decreeholder is that in spite of having means to satisfy the decree, the decreeholder has been avoiding payment of the decretal amount and hence his request for executing the decree by way of arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison.

( 3 ) IN response to notice issued under order 21 Rule 37 of CPC, the judgmentdebtor appeared and filed his counter denying the material allegations.

( 4 ) AS seen from the order under revision, the judgment-debtor is alleged to have sufficient means by way of properties to enable him to pay the decretal amount but he has avoided to pay it. The defence on behalf of the judgment-debtor is that of denial of these allegations.

( 5 ) IT is further pleaded on his behalf that the judgment-debtor is a sickly man and he is suffering from jaundice as well as hypertension and blood pressure since long time.

( 6 ) FT appears on behalf of the decree holder he examined himself as P. W. 1 and on behalf of the judgment-debtor his son Laxminarayana has been examined as r. W. 1. Exs. R-1 and R-2 the medical certificates have also been marked on behalf of the judgment-debtor.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the burden lies on the decreeholder to show that the judgment-debtor has sufficient means and in spite of having such means has refused or neglected to satisfy the decree. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri M. V. Suresh is that the decreeholder has failed to satisfy these conditions and as such the order directing the arrest of the judgment-debtor is illegal and is liable to be set aside. He also contended that in view of the evidence regarding the illness of the judgment-debtor, the order directing him to be sent to civil prison cannot be upheld.

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent-decreeholder on the other hand contends that the order of the learned junior judge is based on sufficient material on record for holding that in spite of having means, the judgment-debtor has been avoiding to pay the decretal amount.

( 9 ) THE learned junior Judge has formulated two points for consideration. (1) Whether the judgment-debtor has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount; and (2) Whether the judgmentdebtor was suffering with incurable (?) disease and was not fit to detain (sic. to be detained ).

( 10 ) ON the first point, the learned Judge gave a finding in favour of the decretal holder. However, it is seen that this finding is based entirely on admission said to have been made by R. W. 1 during his crossexamination. On this basis, the learned judge came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor was possessed of a house worth Rs. 3 to 4 lakhs and on this the learned Judge held that in such a case, it cannot be said safely that the judgment- debtor is having no means to pay the decretal amount .

( 11 ) IN the case of Shaik Mohammad hussain vs. Mada Reddiah1 cited on behalf of the petitioner, this Court held that for the arrest of the judgment-debtor under order 21 Rule 37 of CPC, no enquiry is contemplated but an enquiry is contemplated to commit him to civil prison as contemplated under Section 51 of CPC which could be done only when the Court is satisfied that the judgment-debtor has neglected or refused to pay the amount of the decree. Even here, one can be committed to civil prison only after giving him an opportunity to pay the amount. But, these questions do not arise in this case inasmuch as in this case in response to notice under Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC, the judgment-debtor appeared in the Court and there was no occasion to issue a warrant for his arrest for compelling his pr