IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.M.P.No.7076 of 2011 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4217 of 2010 Between: N.Bhavannarayana … Petitioner And P.Smitha and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.M.P.No.7076 of 2011 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4217 of 2010 ORDER: - C.R.M.P.(SR).No.28086 of 2011 filed for setting aside the dismissal order, dated 15.07.2011, in C.R.P.No.4217 of 2010 is ordered and heard the revision on merits. Petitioner/Judgment debtor filed the present revision assailing the correctness of the order, dated 30.08.2010, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in allowing E.P.No.238 of 2007 in O.S.No.97 of 1999. There is no dispute that the suit filed by the respondent/decree holder for recovery of Rs.1,20,400/- was decreed on 28.09.2004 and the said judgment and decree has become final. For due execution of the same, E.P.No.238 of 2007 was filed in the year 2007 for recovery of Rs.2,25,821/-. On dismissal of the said E.P. for default, E.A.No.573 of 2008 was filed for setting aside the dismissal order and to restore the same. On allowing the E.A.No.573 of 2008, E.P. was restored. When the E.P. was taken up for hearing, judgment debtor reported that the copies were not served on him. The decree holder filed a memo stating that the copies were served on 04.08.2008 and the date on the said memo was wrongly put by his advocate clerk. The judgment debtor has not disputed the same in his counter in the E.P. and he has not challenged the order passed in E.A.No.573 of 2008. Further, a compromise deed, dated 03.09.2000, was made in between Nanduri Bhavannarayana and Akula Radhika and the decree holder is in no way concerned with the said compromise which was made prior to the decree of the suit in O.S.No.97 of 1999. There is no whisper in Ex.B1 about the suit transaction. Further, the petitioner has admitted in his evidence that he is running Herbal manufacturing unit near Nunna, of which he is the Managing Director and that the turn over of the said firm is Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/- per annum. In spite of having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount at one lumpsum, the petitioner has not chosen to pay the said amount. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower court allowing the E.P. and issuing arrest warrant, does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. On petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 28.11.2011 and the balance decretal amount on or before 15.12.2011 and filing proof of the same, he shall not be arrested. In default of either of the conditions, the lower court is entitled to execute the warrant. On such deposit the 1st respondent/decree holder is entitled to withdraw the same. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 11.11.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.M.P.(SR).No.28086 of 2011 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4217 of 2010 11.11.2011 lmv