JUDGMENT The petitioner is the judgment-debtor in a decree, passed in O.S.No. 869 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. The respondent filed that suit for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed on 13-09-2001, and the decree became final. 2. Alleging that in spite of several demands, the petitioner did not pay the amount, the respondent filed E.P.No.30 of 2003 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, after obtaining a precept. The respondent alleged that the petitioner has sufficient means, but still refused to honour the decree. Therefore, he invoked Rule 37 of Order 21 C.P.C., and sought for arrest of the petitioner. The Executing Court issued notice, and after hearing both the parties, recorded a finding that the petitioner failed to discharge the obligation under the decree, though he had sufficient means and capacity, and accordingly directed arrest and detention in civil prison, through order dated 14-06-2004. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. 3. Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executing Court was under obligation to record definite findings, as to the possession of the proper means, or assets by the petitioner, before directing his arrest. He contends that except making certain general and vague allegations, the respondent did not place any reliable material before the Executing Court, to substantiate his plea, that the petitioner is possessed of adequate means. 4. Notice sent to the respondent was returned with an endorsement that his whereabouts are not known. It was sent to the same address, that was furnished in the E.P. Hence, the notice sent, is taken as having been served. 5. The fact, that the decree against the petitioner became final and that he did not discharge the obligation under the decree; is not in dispute. The respondent filed the E.P. and invoked Rule 37 of Order 21 C.P .C. The Executing Court issued notice, directing the petitioner herein, to explain as to why he shall not be arrested and detained in civil prison. In response to the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Executing Court and filed counter affidavit. The respondent filed the E.P. and invoked Rule 37 of Order 21 C.P .C. The Executing Court issued notice, directing the petitioner herein, to explain as to why he shall not be arrested and detained in civil prison. In response to the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Executing Court and filed counter affidavit. Rule 40 of Order 21 C.P.C., mandates that, the Executing Court shall require the decree-holder to substantiate his contention and lead evidence, in the presence of the judgment-debtor, who appears in the Court, on receiving a notice, or on being produced, after being arrested. 6. In a way, it can be said that the Executing Court must undertake a semblance of trial, limited to the purpose of ascertaining, whether the judgment-debtor possesses adequate means to discharge the obligation under the decree. It must be noted that the enquiry is not with a purpose to declare the title of the judgment-debtor, vis-a-vis the property, or to record any finding as to, the worth of the property or means, possessed by him, with mathematical precision. The whole effort is, to see, whether the failure of the judgment-debtor, to honour the decree, is exclusively on account of his total inability, and lack of means, or whether, he just, did not care for the decree, even while being in a position, to honour it, either in its entirely, or in part. 7. It is in this background, that the evidence referred to, in Rule 40, needs to be evaluated. One has to recognize the fact, that the decree holder suffers from a very serious handicap, in the matter of furnishing the list of properties, or sources of income of the judgment-debtor. For the most part of it, he has to proceed on the vague information he has, about the properties held by the judgment-debtor, and it is difficult to expect him, to furnish the title deeds or other supporting documents. Once the decree-holder furnishes the list of properties, which according to his information are, possessed by the judgment-debtor, and deposes to the same, through oral evidence, the burden shifts to the judgment-debtor to disprove the claim of the decree-holder. 8. In the instant case, after the petitioner appeared before it, the Executing Court required the respondent to substantiate his case. The respondent filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. 8. In the instant case, after the petitioner appeared before it, the Executing Court required the respondent to substantiate his case. The respondent filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. He stated that the petitioner is having fish tanks at Undi and surrounding areas, and is getting an income of RS.1,00,000/permonth. He further stated that the petitioner is having terraced building at Rajulapeta, with door No.13-96; worth about Rs.3,00,000/-. The respondent was cross-examined as P.W .1. Nothing was elicited through him. It was suggested that the information received by him, as to the assets of the petitioner; is without basis. 9. On his part, the petitioner deposed as R.W.1. The purport of his evidence, in chief, is that he did not receive the summons in the suit, and that he is not aware of the decree, till he received notice in the execution proceedings. He further stated that he is taking steps to get the ex parte decree set aside. Except denying the plea of the respondent, as to the possession of various items of property, the petitioner did not place any material before the Executing Court, throwing light upon the ownership of the premises, bearing No. 13-96. It is true that the petitioner could not have been expected to prove a negative fact, that he does not hold any fish tanks. However, when the respondent furnished the description of a property, and its value, and alleged that the said item belongs to the petitioner, it was obligatory on the part of the latter, to state as to who was the owner of the said premises. 10. The enquiry in the execution proceedings cannot be carried to such a level, as to defeat the very decree. Broadening the scope of such enquiry, would amount to creating a second avenue for an unsuccessful defendant, and thereby, enable him to defeat the decree. In a way, the petitioner was conducting himself as though the decree passed against him is of no consequence, and that he does not have to care for it. Such an approach cannot be countenanced. 11. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.