JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - On 24th July 1963 this revision was heard in part. As the advocates on either side were not fully prepared this was adjourned. On that day Mr. M.F. Uddin appeared for the opposite party, but today he des not appear. 2. Plaintiff-decree-holder is the Petitioner. He got a decree for Rs. 4600-. The judgment-debtor filed Misc. Case No. 330 of 1961 in the concerned execution case u/s 13 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act praying for installments. The learned trial Court dismissed the application for installments. The learned lower Appellate Court reversed this decision and granted the prayer for installments with the following direction: Let the decretal dues be liquidated in quarterly installments of Rs. 5001/- each, the first installment being payable on the 1st September, 1962. In default of a single installment, the entire decretal dues shall be recoverable in a lump. The decree-holder shall be at liberty to attach the properties of the judgment-debtor-Appellant in the execution case. 3. If instalments were to be granted, the order of the learned Additional District Judge is quite fair. The only point for determination, however, is whether instalments should be granted in the circumstances of the case. Section 13 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act lays down that in the circumstances narrated therein, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant installments in such number and subject to such conditions on the dates fixed by it as, having regard to the circumstances of the judgment-debtor and the amount of decree, it considers fit. The prayer for installments was made by the judgment-debtor and the onus was therefore on him to satisfy the Court that his circumstances were such as to justify the grant of installments in a particular manner having reference to the decretal dues in the case. In every case the decretal dues are known. The only question that requires any attention is to determine the circumstances of the judgment-debtor. In Rusi Dalai and Others Vs. Krushna Ballav Ghosh and Another Harries, C.J. laid down that the expression "circumstances of the judgment-debtor" meant "his capacity to pay". No circumstances have been brought to record in this case justifying the grant of instalments. The Judgment-debtor has filed no affidavit disclosing all sources of his income. He only pledges his own testimony to say that he has no means to pay at a time. No circumstances have been brought to record in this case justifying the grant of instalments. The Judgment-debtor has filed no affidavit disclosing all sources of his income. He only pledges his own testimony to say that he has no means to pay at a time. When law lays down that the Court must take into consideration the circumstances of the judgment-debtor, it must insist on the first instance that the judgment-debtor would disclose all his assets and income so as to give the decree-holder a chance to controvert it, and the Court would then be in a position to appraise the real situation. 4. In this case the sworn testimony of the Defendant is opposed by the evidence of the decree-holder. There is no corroborating evidence. There are no materials on record from which the circumstances of the judgment-debtor can be determined. Without therefore categorically coming to a finding as to the circumstances of the judgment-debtor, the Court illegally exercised its jurisdiction in allowing instalments. The learned Judge appears to have misconceived the legal position in stating as if the onus was on the decree-holder to establish the circumstances of the judgment-debtor. The following passage quoted from his judgment would make the point clear: The bonafides of the Appellant cannot be discarded only because he had mortgaged some of his properties 3 days before the date of judgment. It has not been proved satisfactorily that either the Appellant has still with him the money raised on the mortgages, or that he has a flourishing business from which he can liquidate the decretal dues in a lump. This being so, and the financial condition of the Appellant being not satisfactory on account of his daughter's marriage and failure of crops, he may be given some instalments as prayed by him. Whether there was marriage of his daughter is thoroughly irrelevant to the fact of the case. That there was failure of crop, there is no evidence about it. The learned Judge is inclined to think that the onus was on the decree-holder to establish that the judgment-debtor has no capacity to pay. 5. I would accordingly set aside the order of the learned lower Appellate Court dated 19-7-1962 allowing instalments and allow the Civil Revision with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 32/-.