This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.2007 in E.P.No.54 of 2007 in O.S.No.271 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

2. The revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor, who suffered a money decree. The respondent herein, who is the decree-holder, filed E.P.No.54 of 2007 under Order XXI rules 37 & 38 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Act") for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison for realization of the decretal amount. The said petition was allowed directing the revision petitioner/judgment-debtor to pay the E.P. amount within one month failing which warrant of arrest shall be issued. The said order dated 28.11.2007 is under challenge in the Revision Petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the conclusion of the Court below that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, but refused to pay the same is erroneous and consequently the impugned order directing arrest and detention in civil prison is impermissible and unsustainable.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that having regard to Ex.P1 which established that the judgment-debtor owned a house, the Court below was justified in recording a finding that the judgment-debtor, despite having sufficient means evaded payment of the decretal amount.

6. It is to be noted that the decree-holder/respondent herein got himself examined as P.W.1 and produced Ex.P1 house tax demand extract, which bears the name of the judgment-debtor as its owner. The said plea was denied by the judgment- debtor in his counter as well as in his evidence as R.W.1. However, the Court below disbelieved the version of the judgment-debtor and held that by producing Ex.P.1 the decree-holder made out a prima facie case that the judgment-debtor owned a house and therefore the burden shifted to the judgment-debtor to show that the said house did not belong to him, which he failed to discharge. Accordingly, the Court below while holding that the judgment-debtor having sufficient means evaded to pay the decretal amount, ordered arrest of the Judgment debtor.

7. From the material on record, it is clear that the finding recorded by the Court below that the judgment-debtor has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount is solely based on Ex.P.1 produced by the decree-holder in support of his plea that the judgment-debtor owned a house.

8. Even assuming that the finding recorded by the Court below is correct, the question that arises for consideration is whether in the absence of any material to show that the Judgment debtor is receiving any income out of the said house property, is it permissible to order arrest of the judgment-debtor in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 51 read with Order XXI Rule 37 of Code of Civil Procedure.

9. It is to be noted that the decree-holder in his evidence as P.W.1 disposed that the judgment-debtor had moveable and immovable properties and that he was a businessman getting an income of Rs.10,000/- per month. It was also deposed that the judgment-debtor got immovable property out of which he is getting an income of Rs.50,000/-. However, except Ex.P.1 house tax demand extract claiming that the said house stands in the name of the judgment-debtor, no other evidence could be produced to establish the plea that the Judgment debtor had sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. On the other hand, the judgment-debtor contended that the said house did not belong to him and that he had no means to pay the decretal amount.

10. It is a well settled principle of law that to exercise the jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 37 of Code of Civil Procedure, satisfaction of the Court that the judgment-debtor having means to pay the amount of decree, refused or neglected to pay is mandatory. As held by the Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank o