ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the Order, dated 01.11.2017 passed in E.P.No.93 of 2016 in O.S.No.354 of 2010 on the file of Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati (for short “the Court below”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/D.Hr obtained decree in O.S No.354 of 2010 against the respondents/J.Drs on 6.9.2011. Previously the petitioner filed O.E.P.No.2 of 2012 against J.Dr No.5 under Order 21 Rule 48 and the same was allowed and Decree Holder received Rs.72,000/- as part payment out of Court and O.E.P.No.115 of 2015 was also filed against the 5th J.Dr under Order 21 Rule 46 for attachment of P.R.C arrears and the same was not pressed on 9.6.2016. The J.Dr No.4 is doing real estate business and fancy shop and getting income of Rs.20,000/- per month and also having own house bearing D.No.7-5-138, Konka street, Tirupati worth Rs.50,00,000/- and also having movable properties worth Rs.50,000/-, so, the J.Dr No.4 is having sufficient means to pay E.P amount. It is further stated that the J.Dr No.5 is working as Bank Manager in Indian Bank, Zonal office, Tirupati and getting salary of Rs.50,000/- per month and he also got movables worth Rs.50,000/- and he is also having more than Rs.2,00,000/- cash on hand. Further, J.Drs 1 to 3 left Tirupati and their whereabouts are not known. J.Drs No.4 and 5 though having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, they deliberately avoiding to pay the same hence the petitioner/D.Hr filed the impugned application seeking to arrest J.Drs 4 and 5 for realization of Decretal amount.

3. The respondent No.4/J.Dr No.4 remained exparte.

The respondent No.5/J.Dr 5 filed counter before the Court below and denied all the allegations made in the petition and stated that he is one of the guarantors of J.Dr.1. the petitioner and 1st respondent colluded with each other and filed the E.P. Already the petitioner filed the E.P No.2 of 2012 against this J.Dr for attachment of his salary and an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month for 24 months was attached and the said E.P was closed on 31.12.2012. It is further stated that this J.Dr totally paid an amount of Rs.72,000/- towards decree. Further, the petitioner filed another E.P for attachment of PRC arrears of salary of this J.Dr for the same decree which is not maintainable in law. Thereafter the petitioner not pressed the EP on 9.6.2016. the petitioner/D.Hr filed present E.P for arrest of J.Dr No.5 for the same decree, which is not maintainable and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner/D.Hr the Foreman of the D.Hr’s company was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. On behalf of the respondents/J.Drs, the 5th JDr himself was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the court below framed the following point for consideration:

Whether the J.Drs 4 and 5 are liable for arrest?

6. After careful examination of the evidence on record and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below allowed the said application and issued arrest warrant against J.Drs 4 and 5 on payment of process. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.

7. Heard Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

8. As seen from the Proceeding sheet, this Court vide order, dated 24.11.2017, in CRP MP No.8319 of 2017, has granted interim direction as under:

“ Subject to the petitioner depositing the entire EP amount to the credit of the said EP in three (3) equal installments commencing from today, falling on 24.12.2017, 24.01.2018 and 24.2.2018 without fail, there shall be interim stay of arrest of the petitioner. Default of payment of any of these installments on the above due dates, will automatically result in vacation of the interim order. Thereafter, vide order