ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the revision-petitioner. No representation for the respondents.

2. This revision-petition is filed against the Order, dated 09.07.2014 in E.P.No.14 of 2006 in O.S.No.89 of 1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Sompeta.

3. The execution petition was filed by the revision-petitioner under Order XXI Rule 37 and 38 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to send the 1st respondent/judgment-debtor to civil prison alleging that he was having means to discharge the decree amount, but he intentionally evading to discharge the decree amount with an intention to defeat the decree.

4. In the light of the above context, the point that arises for consideration is:-

“Whether the Executing Court committed any irregularity in the Order dated 09.07.2014 passed in E.P.No.14 of 2006 in O.S.No.89 of 1997?”

5. POINT:-

The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence of the decree-holder and the 1st respondent/judgment-debtor held that the decree-holder did not adduce any evidence to establish that the judgment-debtor is having means AS pleaded by the decree-holder. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jolly George Varghese and another vs. The Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470 at para