ORDER:

The present civil revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 11.11.2016 in E.P.No.88 of 2015 in O.S.No.99 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, whereby the petition filed by the decree holder under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking arrest of judgment debtor to realise the E.P. amount was allowed.

2. The case of the petitioner/judgment debtor is:

The respondent/decree holder filed O.S.No.99 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Bobbili for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and the same is decreed on 11.11.2016. Though the decree was passed, the petitioner/judgment debtor failed to pay the decretal amount, as such the respondent/decree holder has filed execution petition under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC seeking arrest of the petitioner/Judgment debtor to realize the decretal amount of Rs.1,80,000/-.

3. The petitioner/judgment debtor filed counter wherein he stated that the Government has sanctioned a house to him as houseless poor and it is RCC slabbed house bearing assessment No.758. The Judgment debtor has no saleable interest over the said property and he has no other means to pay the decretal amount.

4. On behalf of the Decree holder P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Ex.P.1 was marked. On behalf of the judgment debtor R.W.1 is examined and Exs.R.1 to R.7 were marked.

5. The Court below observed that the petitioner herein in the cross-examination admitted that he used to ply auto bearing No.4050. He also stated that he compromised with the Decree holder in the suit and agreed to pay the suit amount in instalments. Accordingly, he paid for three months but denied that he paid only one month. But Ex.R.1 shows that vacant site is handed over to the wife of the Judgment debtor. The Court below allowed the said application observing that the wife of the Judgment debtor has vacant site, further the Judgment debtor is plying auto and is getting income from the said auto. As such, the Judgment debtor inspite of having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, still evading to pay the same and accordingly, the EP was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor is before this Court by way of the present revision.

6. Heard Sri K.Sitaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of E.P., the Judgment debtor was not in a position to pay the amount, but as of now he is ready to pay the amount within few months. Ultimately the Decree holder wants to realize the decretal amount and when the petitioner is ready to pay the amount. Some time may be granted and the impugned order may be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has no objection to set aside the order impugned if the petitioner is ready to pay the amount. However, he submits that the default clause may be incorporated in the order.

9. Recording the submissions of both the learned counsel, this civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 11.11.2016 and the Judgment debtor/revision petitioner is directed to pay the decretal amount, within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, it is open to the Decree holder to to take appropriate steps for recovery of the decretal amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J Dated : 25.03.2021

KA

THE HON”BLE SMT.JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Allowed CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.47 of 2017

Dated 25.03.2021

KA