ORDER : 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in E.P.No.69 of 2018 in O.S.No.279 of 2016 by the Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad. 2. The respondent filed the execution petition under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the CPC, seeking civil imprisonment of the petitioner. The learned Judge allowed the execution petition and issued an arrest warrant under Order XXI Rule 38 of the CPC against the petitioner on payment of Batta. 3. This Court, while admitting the Civil Revision Petition, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the decretal amount together with interest and costs within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The said order was passed on 30.12.2022. The petitioner complied with the directions of this Court and deposited 50% of the decretal amount together with interest and costs. Though the petitioner could not deposit the same within the stipulated period of six weeks, the same was deposited at a later point of time, and the respondent has withdrawn the said amount. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Junior Civil Judge erred in allowing the execution petition by relying on the submission of the respondent that the petitioner owns immovable properties and has capacity to discharge the decretal amount however is evading the payment and rendering the decree obtained by the respondent as a paper decree. It is pertinent to submit that the respondent could not submit any documents to evidence the ownership of immovable property in the name of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on the cross-examination of the respondent, wherein the respondent deposed that the petitioner has immovable property on his name. It is submitted that the respondent has not established before the Court, by submitting any document, evidencing ownership of immovable property on the name of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has deliberately chosen to avoid repayment of the decretal amount. 5. It is further submitted that the burden lies on the respondent to establish that the petitioner has immovable property which could be subjected to sale for realization of the decretal amount. Thus, the petitioner has deliberately chosen to avoid repayment of the decretal amount. 5. It is further submitted that the burden lies on the respondent to establish that the petitioner has immovable property which could be subjected to sale for realization of the decretal amount. It is submitted that in the absence of the respondent discharging his primary burden in proving that the petitioner has immovable property on his name, the liberty of the petitioner cannot be compromised. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jolly George Varghese and another vs. The Bank of Cochin . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, earlier income of the judgment debtor is immaterial and it is a duty of the executing court to inquire his present financial position and ability to satisfy the debt. The order of sending the judgment debtor to civil imprisonment without determining the above legal mandate, the same is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge erred in allowing the execution petition and submits that the matter may be remanded for further consideration. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has submitted his chief examination before the execution court and also entered the witness box and was cross-examined by the petitioner. Though the petitioner filed a counter in the execution petition, the petitioner did not choose to examine himself and did not subject himself to cross-examination. The petitioner avoided examining himself before the execution court and, as such, cannot seek any relief before this Court. 8. It is also submitted that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to submit his evidence and depose before the Court. It is submitted that mere submission of a counter would not absolve the petitioner of his obligation and take the stand of the petitioner for granted, that he does not possess any properties on his name. The truth and facts would have been brought on record had the petitioner entered the witness box. Having failed to discharge the mandatory requirement of submitting evidence either to himself or any third party, the petitioner cannot now approach this Court and seek any relief. 9. The truth and facts would have been brought on record had the petitioner entered the witness box. Having failed to discharge the mandatory requirement of submitting evidence either to himself or any third party, the petitioner cannot now approach this Court and seek any relief. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in C.R.P. No.3016 of 2019,whreby reliance was placed on the judgment passed in Gottumukkala Venkata vs. Indapalati Apparao , 2006 (3) ALD 700 and held that the decree holder did not proved the property possessed by the judgment debtor with mathematical precision. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 11. The order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge is well-considered and reasonable, and this Court finds no grounds to interfere in the well- reasoned order. As seen from the record, it is evident that the petitioner did not examine himself as a witness. Having chosen not to examine himself, the evidentiary value of the counter filed by the petitioner would be of no consequence without supporting oral evidence. Had the petitioner subjected himself to cross-examination, further facts would have been brought on record. 12. However, considering that the petitioner chose not to examine himself as a witness in the execution proceedings and also considering the age of the respondent, no purpose would be served in remanding the matter to the Execution Court. It is also pertinent to consider that the suit was filed for recovery of money, and further taking note of the fact that the petitioner has deposited 50% of the decretal amount as directed by this Court. No legal and valid grounds are raised in the present Civil Revision Petition which warrants the interference of this Court in the well-considered and well-reasoned impugned order. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.