S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner questions the order of the 1st Additional District Munsif, chittoor in O. E. P. No. 257 of 1988 in o. S. No. 616 of 1985 dated 14-3-1990 directing the judgment-debtor to pay the entire decretal amount of Rs. 21,318. 75 ps. , which included interest upto 2-9-1988, on or before 30-4-1990 failing which he would be liable for arrest without any further enquiry.

( 2 ) THIS C. R. P. was admitted on 23-4-1990 and this Court granted interim stay in c. M. P. No. 5941 of 1990 on condition that the petitioner deposited one-fourth of the decretal amount within two months and permitting the respondent/decree-holder to withdraw the amount, if deposited, without furnishing security. The petitioner sought extension of time on 14-6-1990 in C. M. P. No. 7689of 1990 and on 15-6-1990 it was extended by 10 weeks. On the respondent s C. M. P. No. 17743 of 1990 for vacating the interim stay, this Court on 24-1-1991 ordered that the interim stay be made absolute subject to the condition of the petitioner paying another one-fourth of the decretal amount within one month from that day, and permitting the respondents to withdraw the amount, if any deposited, without furnishing security. Subsequently, in C. M. P. No. 2446 of 1991 by order dated 22-2-1991 this Court extended the time for making that deposit till the end of March, 1991 stating that in default the stay shall stand vacated.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner did not deposit another one-fourth of the decretal amount as directed by this Court on24-l-1991 and 22-2-1991,and that, therefore, the stay should be deemed to be vacated. However, the petitioner was not arrested in view of the pendency of the C. R. P.

( 4 ) ON going through the judgment of the learned 1st Additional District Munsif, it is seen that he proceeded on the basis that the burden lay on the judgment-debtor to establish that he had no property to meet the decree to avoid arrest and that "the liability of the decree- holder to prove with regard to means is not so strict but it is only placing some prima facie material with regard to his means". On that basis, the learned 1 st Additional District Munsif held that the decree-holder was able to satisfy the Court with regard to the means of the judgment-debtor, and that the burden then shifted to the judgment-debtor to establish that he had no means to satisfy the decree. The learned 1 st Additional District Munsif himself pointed out that apart from the oral statement made by the decree-holder, no material whatsoever was placed before him to establish that the judgment-debtor had the means and yet did not care to discharge the decree. The learned 1st Additional District Munsif stated as follows:"it is to be seen that the judgment-debtor except stating orally with regard to allegations made by him in his counter he did not examine any other witnesses nor filed any documents in support of his contentions. Therefore, what all the judgment- debtor has stated in his counter is only supported by oral evidence by the judgment-debtor. Therefore, the Court has to consider the oral evidence of the judgment-debtor alone to come to a conclusion with regard to his liability to pay the E. P. amount. "but, this is placing the cart before the horse because the decree-holder had not placed any evidence whatsoever to establish that the judgment-debtor was having any property or any means whatsoever to discharge the decree apart from his own oral statement. The learned 1st Additional District Munsif observed as follows:"when cross examined by the Counsel for the judgment-debtor, he (decree-holder) admitted that he has filed the affidavit in support of the E. P. He also admitted his signature in the said affidavit. He stated that he did not state in his affidavit that the judgment-debtor owns Ac. 20. 00 of landed property. and getting an income of rs. 1,25,000/- and he is evading to pay the decree amount. He also replied that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document