THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P. No. 4490 of 2009 O R D E R: This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against an order made in E.A. No. 81 of 2009 in E.P. No. 131 of 2007 in O.S. No. 234 of 2003 dated 31.7.2009 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Pottisreeramulu Nellore, whereunder the application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for raising attachment order passed in E.A. No. 60 of 2008 was disposed of directing the judgment- debtor to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and to give immovable property security for rest of the E.P. amount within 15 days and raising the attachment order in E.A. No. 60 of 2008 for the present. Petitioner is the decree-holder. Respondent is the judgment-debtor. Petitioner filed suit in O.S. No. 294 of 2003 for recovery of money. The suit was decreed as prayed for, for an amount of Rs.8,08,100/- by judgment and decree dated 10.11.2006. When the decree amount was not paid, the decree-holder filed E.P. No. 131 of 2007 for execution of decree and also filed E.A. 60 of 2008 for attachment of the amount lying with the garnishee, and the attachment was ordered. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.A. No. 81 of 2009 under Order XXI Rule 58 read with 151 C.P.C. for raising attachment order passed in E.A. No. 60 of 2008 and to accept the surety furnished by him. In the meanwhile, the judgment-debtor also filed appeal, being A.S. No. 174 of 2007, against judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 294 of 2003 dated 10.11.2006, before this Court. Though, initially he has not filed any application seeking stay of the decree, in view of the attachment order passed by the executing Court in E.A. No. 60 of 2008, he has filed ASMP No. 2036 of 2008 in A.S. No. 174 of 2007, which was disposed of on 24.9.2008 with the following direction: “The appellant is at liberty to file an application before lower Court for attachment of immovable property. The Court below may consider the request of the appellant after examining the documents filed by him and may pass appropriate orders”. Then the petitioner seems to have filed E.A. No. 81 of 2009. After considering the rival contentions, the executing Court passed the following order: “a) D.Hr obtained decree on 10.11.2006 for an amount of Rs.8,08,100/-. Subsequent interest was also claimed as Rs.29,900/-. E.P. is filed claiming Rs.9,34,427/- as on 26.6.2007. Costs of Rs.37,252/- is also claimed. Pro-Order was issued to the garnishee of J.Dr for withholding the E.P. amount. The petitioner/J.Dr is working on contract basis by getting commission on electricity consumption bills issued to the consumers of Electricity Board. Such amount was said to be in the hands of the garnishee. An order was passed, but the garnishee sent letter dated 18.8.2007 stating that Rs.1,67,000/- was withheld in the proceedings of the suit O.S. 108/2000 and Rs.2,55,121/- was withheld in the proceedings of E.P.119/2004 in O.S. 231/2000 and that no further amount is lying. That letter shows that two other suits were filed against the same petitioner/J.Dr and were decreed against him. b) As no amount is in the hands of the garnishee of J.Dr, a memo is filed by the D.Hr stating that there is no amount lying in the hands of the garnishee and that J.Dr is doing work on contract basis and that he is drawing bill amount of Rs.30,000/- per month. It is prayed to modify the order. Such modification order was ordered in E.A.60/2008, as order was already passed for withholding the amount. Letter dated 22.9.2008 is sent by the garnishee stating that an amount of Rs.35,000/- is to be recovered every month from the future bills of J.Dr till the entire amount of Rs.9,71,679/- is paid towards full satisfaction of this E.P. c) J.Dr has preferred A.S. 174/2007 an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the decree passed in the suit and filed the application for stay of execution of the decree. J.Dr was directed to approach the Execution Court. J.Dr has filed photo copy of his sale deed dated 21.6.2004 towards security. The property is located at Bagayath Ibrahimpatnam village under the Gram Panchayat of Sheriguda village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal of Rangareddy District. It is an extent of Ac.2-28 guntas. Its market value was Rs.81,000/- as on 21.6.2004. J.Dr intended to give the same as security. It is located beside Lake Villa Resorts. Encumbrance Certificate dated 19.9.2008 is filed to show that there was no further sale or mortgage of the said property after the year 2004. But the boundaries of the said property show that the property cannot be traced on ground easily. The petitioner intends to give such property as security. According to him, he has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. The contention of D.Hr is that it is easier for D.Hr to obtain the monthly emoluments received by him from his garnishee. To come over the same, it is accepted for the petitioner to deposit fifty thousands and to give immovable security till petitioner gets on with the appeal. The learned counsel of petitioner has represented that J.Dr gets lesser amount and that sufficient time be given to him, as the J.Dr is already having other debts. But the property offered by J.Dr is not the copy of sale deed filed by him are not showing correct details. d) Considering the same, J.Dr is directed to deposit one lakh and to give immovable security for the rest of E.P. amount to have time gap of five months before further execution. No amount is lying in the hands of garnishee. As such this point is answered accordingly. In the result, petition is allowed on condition of deposit of one lakh by the petitioner/J.Dr and he has to give immovable security for the rest of E.P. amount within 15 days. The attachment order in E.A.60/08 is raised for the present. It is ordered so as to give a time gap of five months for further execution of this decree”. Aggrieved thereby, the present C.R.P. is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri O. Manohar Reddy strenuously contended that the immovable property sought to be furnished as security was not properly appreciated by the Court below. The Court itself found that the boundaries of the said property show that the property cannot be traced on the ground easily and the respondent intends to give such property as security. Therefore, the Court below ought not to have passed the order impugned in this C.R.P. Having perused the material available on record, including the order passed by the Court below, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Court below is as vague as it could be. The Court below itself found that the boundaries are not traceable easily on the ground and the market value of the property as on 21.6.2004 was Rs.81,000/-. May be, it is more than that, as on today. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, asserted that the property is worth more than Rs.2.00 lakhs. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to modify the order passed by the executing Court, as under: “In the result, the petition is allowed on condition of depositing Rs.4.00 lakhs (Rupees four lakhs only) by the judgment debtor. However, there is no necessity of furnishing any immovable property security for the rest of the amount since the appeal is pending. Since it is represented that the judgment debtor has already deposited Rupees One Lakh, the petitioner-decree holder may be permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Further, the judgment-debtor shall deposit Rs.3.00 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks from today. On deposit of such amount, the decree holder is at liberty to withdraw the same after furnishing immovable property security”. The C.R.P. is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 02-6-2010. MVB.