ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is filed by J.Dr.No.3 under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 28.10.2022 allowing the petition in E.P.No.26 of 2017 in O.P.No.28 of 2012 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Hindupur filed under Order 21, Rules 37 and 38 CPC by arrest and detention of the J.Drs.No.1, 3 and 4 for realization of the decreetal amount of Rs.4,69,793/-.

2. The D.Hr. stated that she has a decree against J.Drs.No.1, 3 and 4 in O.P.No.28 of 2012 granting compensation in relation to the motor vehicle accident. D.Hr. further stated that there has been no appeal filed against the said decree and therefore it is executable against these J.Drs. and that these J.Drs., having sufficient means to satisfy the decree failed to discharge the same and are trying to drag on the proceedings without making any payment.

3. J.Drs.No.1, 3 and 4 filed separate counters. J.Dr.No.3 filed counter stating that he has no means to pay and that E.P. amount is excessive. This J.Dr. further stated that the accident occurred only due to negligence act of J.Drs.No.1 and 4 and the said vehicle was in the custody of J.Dr.No.1 who is owner of it and further that J.Dr.No.1 has sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount, yet the D.Hr and J.Dr.No.1 colluded and filed this E.P. against J.Dr.No.3 for making wrongful gain only.

4. On behalf of D.Hr., she was examined as P.W.1 and filed certified copy of award dated 17.11.2016 as Ex.P1 and certified copy issued through Meeseva for 1B namoona issued by Tahsildar, Kundurpi as Ex.P2. J.Dr.No.3 was examined as R.W.1. He further examined R.W.2 Shaik Anwar and R.W.3 V.Ramamohan. He filed certified copy of the sale deed dated 31.08.2018 standing in the name of J.Dr.No.1 and his wife issued through Meeseva, Ananthapur as Ex.R1 and certified copy of sale deed dated 06.02.2018 executed by Lalitha Kumari who is wife of J.Dr.No.1 in favour of S.Vishnuvardhan Reddy and M.Lakshmi Venkatesh as Ex.R2. After considering the evidence and the arguments on both sides, the execution Court allowed the petition against J.Drs. No.1, 3 and 4 observing that the D.Hr clearly and categorically established the means of J.Drs.No.1, 3 and 4 and that they are intentionally trying to avoid from making payment of the decreetal amount.

5. Having aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed by J.Dr.No.3 alone contending that he admitted his income as Rs.50,000/- per annum, but the execution Court took it as Rs.50,000/- per month and similarly the extent of the land is mistakenly noted as 30 acres, instead of 13 acres and therefore, the orders suffer from errors and the same is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the documents filed by him to prove the means of J.Dr.No.1 were not considered by the execution Court.

6. Inspite of service of notice on R.1/D.Hr., no appearance has been made. Notice sent to R.2 was returned and fresh notice to R.2/J.Dr.No.1 is dispensed with. R.3/J.Dr.No.4 was served notice, but no appearance has been made. R.4/J.Dr.No.2 against whom there is no decree is shown as not necessary party. In fact no relief in the revision petition is against R.2 to R.4.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that J.Dr.No.3 has only a share in the total extent of 13 acres of joint family property and that J.Dr.No.3 does not get more income from the said land as it is effected by drought and therefore, J.Dr.No.3 is only an agricultural labour and has no enough means, but execution Court ordered execution against him also by mistakenly considering the evidence as indicated in the grounds of revision. He further submitted that unless it is proved that the J.Dr. having sufficient means, failed to discharge the decreetal debt, the harsh remedy of keeping the J.Dr. in civil prison for realization of the decreetal amount should not be resorted and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in a case of Jolly George Varghese and another vs.