THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH (4TH) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2943 of 2008 Between: Palagani Pattabirami Reddy … Petitioner And: State Bank of India, Town Branch, Nellore … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2943 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2008 in CMA No.13 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein, the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed, confirming the order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, in IA No.1154 of 2004 in OS No.151 of 1995. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent-Bank filed suit against the petitioner and other defendants, for recovery of certain amounts due on a mortgage. The other defendants remained ex-parte. The petitioner/first defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. After full-fledged trial, a preliminary decree was passed by the Court on 04.12.2001 for a sum of Rs.2,58,527.40 with interest and costs under Order XXXIV Rule 4 CPC. As the petitioner did not discharge the debt as per the preliminary decree, the respondent/plaintiff filed IA No.1154 of 2004 for passing final decree. The petitioner opposed the said application inter-alia, on the ground that he availed the benefit of OTS (one time settlement) announced by the Reserve Bank of India and paid a sum of Rs.54,454/- under receipt Ex.B.1 on 27.03.2002 and another sum of Rs.95,546/- on 27.3.2002 under Ex.B.2, but the Court failed to give credit for the said payment. 4. It is to be noted that Exs.B.1 and B.2 were filed in the suit itself and preliminary decree was passed after considering Exs.B.1 and B.2. The contention of the petitioner/first defendant that he was entitled to the benefits of OTS was negatived by the Court. The trial Court, therefore, held that the petitioner is not entitled to re-agitate the same issue again in the final decree proceedings and rejecting objections raised by the petitioner a final decree was passed on the terms of the preliminary decree, on 26.02.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed CMA No.13 of 2007 and by the impugned order, the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore, dismissed the said appeal. 5. As stated supra, the plea of the petitioner based on Exs.B.1 and B.2 was considered in the suit itself and negatived. The preliminary decree has become final, as no appeal was preferred. Admittedly, no payment was made by the petitioner subsequent to passing of the preliminary decree. Under those circumstances, the trial Court has rightly passed final decree in terms of the preliminary decree. The impugned orders of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, therefore do not call for any interference. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some time may be granted to the petitioner for discharge of the debt. Hence, the petitioner is granted four months time to discharge the debt due under the decree. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 04.03.2011 bss