THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::THAMABALLAPALLE

Present :Sri J.Anajaiah, Junior Civil Judge. Thamaballapalle.

Dated this the 8 th day of March, 2018

E.P. No.2/2017 in OS.No.31/2016

Between

B.Sathyanarayana Reddy, S/o Sidda Reddy, age: 50 yrs. Hindu, Cultivation, R/at Boorlapalle Post, PTM Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Decree Holder.

and

V.Prathap Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy, age: 40 yrs. Hindu, Cultivation, R/at Maligivaripalle, H/o Maddinayunipalle Post, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Judgment Debtor.

This petition is coming before me on 07.03.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri O.V.Ramachandra, Advocate for D.Hr. and the J.Dr. having remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1. This E.P is filed Under Order 21 Rule 37 and 38 of C.P.C for detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison, since the J.Dr, though having sufficient means, is neglecting to pay the decreetal amount.

2. The brief averments of the affidavit of Decree Holder, filed in support of the present Execution Petition, are as follows: The decree holder obtained money decree against the judgment debtor in O.S.No.31/2016 on 15.07.2016. After passing the decree the Decree holder approached and demanded to the Judgment Debtor to discharge the decretal amount together with interest and also suit costs to him,

but the JDr evading to pay the same on pretext or the other even though the JDr is having sufficient means to pay the EP debt. The Decree holder further submitted the Judgment Debtor is doing business and getting income of Rs.10,000/- p.a. and doing real estate business and getting an income from the business Rs.50,00,000/- p.a. and also he is having house property worth of Rs.50,00,000/- and he is doing seasonal business like groundnut, paddy, tamarind, jagerry and tomato and getting from the above said business Rs.50,00,000/- p.a. and he is getting income from agricultural products worth of Rs.10,00,000/- p.a. and the JDr is having ample means to discharge the E.P. amount.

3. No representation on behalf of the JDr. Service of summons held sufficient. Hence, the judgment debtor set ex-parte.

4. To prove his case, the Decree Holder himself was examined as PW.1 and no documents were marked. On the other hand, the JDr. having remained ex-parte.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the D.Hr.

6. Now the point for consideration is:-Whether the Judgment debtor is having sufficient means and if so, he is neglecting to discharge the deecretal debt?

7. Point:-The initial burden to prove this point is on the DHr. The DHr has to prove that the JDr is having or had means to pay the decreetal amount or some substantial part of it since the date of decree, and either he had refused or neglected to pay it.

8. The DHr himself was examined as PW.1. In the chief affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination, that the JDr is doing business and getting income of Rs.10,000/- p.a. and doing real estate business and getting an income from the business Rs.50,00,000/- p.a. and also he is having house property worth of Rs.50,00,000/- and he is doing seasonal business like groundnut, paddy, tamarind, jagerry and tomato and getting from the above said business Rs.50,00,000/- p.a. and he is getting income from agricultural products worth of Rs.10,00,000/- p.a. and also having landed properties i.e., Ac.10-00 cents dry lands worth of Rs.20,00,000/- and wet lands Ac.2-00 cents worth of Rs.5,00,000/ at his village of Maligivaripalle village, H/o Maddinayunipalle Revenue village of Molakalacheruvu Mandal and the JDr is having ample means to discharge the E.P. amount but, the JDr did not discharge the E.P. amount.

9. The learned counsel for the DHr. argued that the D.Hr, by examining him could discharge his initial burden of showing that the JDr has sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount. As seen from the material papers available on record the J.Dr is having sufficient means to pay the decreetal debt but, he did not pay any amount towards the decreetal debt, till today. This supports the case of the D.Hr., that the J.Dr is intentionally evading the payment the decreetal debt or a substantial portion of it. Hence, I find grounds to allow the petition.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the D.Hr has proved his case that the J.Dr. is having sufficient means to discharge the E.P. amount and that he had intentionally neglected to pay the same. Accordingly, the D.Hr is entitled to the relief claimed by him. This point is answered in favour of D.Hr and against the J.Dr.

11. In the result, this E.P is allowed with costs. Issue arrest warrant on J.Dr., on payment of necessary process by D.Hr. Call on 06.04.2018.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8 th day of March, 2018*.*

Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for

Decree Holder: Judgment Debtor:

PW.1- B.Sathyanarayana Reddy -None-

Exhibits marked for Decree Holder:-Nil

Exhibits marked for Judgment Debtor:- Nil

Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle.