HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2003 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order in EP No.64 of 2015 in OS No.91 of 2008 dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, directing the issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner/ judgment debtor.
2. This Court, by order dated 16.09.2022 granted interim suspension on condition of the petitioner/judgment debtor paying the respondent/decree holder, 1/4th of the decreetal amount i.e., Rs.31,310/- within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proof is filed by the plaintiff/respondent to substantiate that the revision petitioner/judgment debtor has any means to pay the amount. Unless there is deliberate intention not to pay despite possessing sufficient means, arrest can be ordered. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of 2 V.Sreenivasulu v. B.Narasimmurthy and others1 and Korada Narayana Rao v. Kudara Mutyalu2.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder relied upon the judgment of this Court in V.Balachandra Naidu v. Dr.V.Gurubhushana Naidu3 and also the order in Civil Revision Petition No.310 of 2018, dated 22.06.2022 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and argued that there is no proof that the judgment debtor has no means of funds, for the said reason, the impugned order cannot be interfered with.
5. As seen from the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor, he was commission agent in the agriculture market committee, Suryapet. However, his licence of Commission Agency was suspended and as the government decided to directly purchase grains from the 1 2001 (4) ALD 152 2 2019(4) ALD 107 3 2015(2) ALD 742 3 farmers through cooperative societies, there is no source of income to the judgment debtor.
6. The trial Court, while disposing of the EP on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and R.Ws.1 and 2 found that the judgment debtor's licence work as Commission Agent was renewed six months prior to the order and he has source of income. For the said reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.11.2022 kvs 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2003 OF 2022 Date: 29.11.2022.
kvs 5