Nomula Shravan Kumar vs Challamalla Venkata Ramana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6242 Tel

             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

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

2001 (4) ALD 152

2019(4) ALD 107

2015(2) ALD 742

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

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2003 OF 2022

Date: 29.11.2022.

kvs