ORDER :- The petitioner filed OS No.59 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, against the respondent, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed on 24.7.2006. After the decree became final, the petitioner filed EP No.50 of 2007, under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC, alleging that, in spite of possessing adequate means, the respondent failed to pay the decretal amount. Notice was issued to the respondent, and he filed a counter-affidavit. He admitted that, he possessed lands, but pleaded that they are not yielding any income. He has also taken the plea that he is a small farmer. The trial Court dismissed the EP, through order dated 9.1.2008, on the ground that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden, to prove that the respondent had adequate means.

2. Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very approach of the Executing Court, requiring the petitioner to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the respondent has adequate means, to discharge the decree; is contrary to law. He contends that, in matters of this nature, the duty of the decree-holder ends, where he establishes prima facie, that the judgment-debtor had valuable property. It is also his case that though the respondent has made a vague and uncertain statement that he is a small farmer, he did not utter a word in the deposition, and there was no basis for the Executing Court to dismiss the EP.

3. Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that when his client has taken the plea that he does not possess adequate means to discharge the decree, it was for the petitioner to prove the otherwise. He contends that when the personal liberty of the respondent is involved, meticulous care was required to be taken, and the Executing Court decided the matter in accordance with law.

4. The petitioner filed the EP, to recover the decretal amount. The Executing Court issued notice to the respondent, and after he appeared, it undertook the inquiry. The petitioner filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, and pleaded that the respondent is the owner of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.l2 cents in Chiyyavaram. He further contended that the respondent is doing business and he possessed of adequate means to discharge the decree. EX.A4 is the encumbrance certificate, disclosing that the respondent is the owner of an extent of Ac.1.l2 cents of land. As RW1, the respondent filed an affidavit, admitting that he owns the land, but pleaded that, it is not yielding any income. Though in the counter, in the EP, he took the plea that he is a small farmer, he did not utter a word in the chief-examination. He admitted that the lands in the neighbourhood of his land, are being cultivated regularly. He did not contradict the plea of the petitioner, that he is doing business.

5. The Executing Court took the view that the petitioner has to come forward with conclusive proof, as regards the means of the respondent herein, to honour the decree. At more places than one, the Executing Court emphasized, that the petitioner must come forward with conclusive proof.

6. Another aspect is that, even as regards the status of the respondent, as a landless poor, the Executing Court has placed the entire burden upon the petitioner. The precedent cited before it, was just brushed aside, by observing that, it does not apply.

7. The approach adopted by the Executing Court is totally untenable in law. Once a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff in a suit, the corresponding obligation is placed upon the defendant, to discharge the decree. When there is no response from the defendant, for discharging the decree, the plaintiff had an option to choose the method of execution. Arrest of the judgment-debtor is one such options. It can be resorted to, only when it is alleged by the decree-holder, that the judgment-debtor failed to comply with the decree, though the latter possessed of adequate means. Law does not re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document