Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 25th June, 2010, in E.P.No.90 of 2004 in O.S.No.86 of 1999, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. 2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in OS.No.86 of 1999, in which he suffered a decree, on 15-07-2004, for Rs.39,612/- with pendentelite interest @ 12 % p.a., and future interest @ 6% p.a. As the petitioner failed to pay the decretal amount inspite of repeated demands by the respondent-decree holder, the latter filed E.P.No.90 of 2004, for the petitioner’s arrest and detention, under Order XXI Rules 37 to 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner was able to successfully drag on the said EP for nearly six years and eventually, by Order, dated 25th June, 2010, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, dismissed the same by directing that the petitioner be detained in civil prison for a period of three months for wilfully neglecting to pay the decretal amount. The petitioner has sought for revision of the said Order in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. In the EP, the respondent has pleaded that the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, is earning Rs.20,000/- p.m.; that he is a panel advocate for Andhra Bank and; that he is also having landed & house properties, from which he is getting substantial income. It is, thus, the pleaded case of the respondent that the petitioner, having sufficient means to pay, is wilfully evading payment of the decretal amount. 4. The petitioner resisted the said EP. 5. The respondent examined himself as PW.1 and filed Ex.P.1 certified copy of sale deed, dated 21-02-2003. The petitioner examined himself as RW.1 and has not marked any document on his side. 6. The Court below appreciated the evidence on record and held that the petitioner, being a practicing advocate and also a legal advisor of Andhra Bank, State Bank of India and State Bank of Hyderabad, as per his own admissions, and also having a house plot, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has means to pay and that he wilfully evaded payment despite having such means. 7. 7. A perusal of the order under revision shows that in his counter-affidavit, the petitioner has stated as under: “It is not disputed that the judgment debtor is a practicing advocate at Kodad and also panel Advocate for Andhra Bank.” In his cross-examination, the petitioner, as RW.1, deposed as under: “I am the legal advisor of Andhra Bank, State Bank of India and State Bank of Hyderabad……………………. I am residing in my relative’s house at Kodad standing in the name of T. Umamaheswari, who is my wife.” He has also admitted that he is having a house plot admeasuring 218 square yards at Tammarabandapalem in Survey Nos.350 and 351. The respondent, in his cross-examination, stated that the house plot owned by the petitioner costs about Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.4 lakhs. 8. On the strength of the above-noted evidence, the Court below has come to the conclusion, and in my view very rightly, that the petitioner, despite having means to pay, has evaded payment wilfully. The Court below is also justified in being critical against the petitioner’s attitude in trying to mislead the Court by initially saying that he was taking shelter in the house of his relative and thereafter, disclosing that the house, in which he is staying, stands in the name of his wife. The Court below has also taken note of the fact that on the petitioner’s own admission, his wife is working as a teacher. 9. It is indeed painful that the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate and a legal advisor for as many as three Nationalised Banks, tried to evade his liability to pay money under a decree, which has attained finality. He made all the attempts to mislead the Court below by pleading no means. His bluff is, however, exposed through his own admissions, in the cross-examination, that his wife is a teacher, the house, in which he is living, stands in the name of his wife and that he owns a plot, the value of which is suggested to be Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.4 lakhs, which suggestion was not denied by him. The petitioner, obviously, using his position as advocate, has also dragged the EP for as many as almost six years. Such a conduct on the part of a practicing advocate is deplorable. The petitioner, obviously, using his position as advocate, has also dragged the EP for as many as almost six years. Such a conduct on the part of a practicing advocate is deplorable. While I find no reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the well-considered Order, dated 25th June, 2010, passed by the Court below, the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh is directed to examine the conduct of the petitioner in, deliberately, evading payment of the liability arising under a decree passed by a competent Court of law by raising false and specious pleas and whether it is desirable to continue such a person in this noble profession. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The respondent is entitled to recover the costs, if the same are not paid within one month from today. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP.No.6469 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous.