IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4169 of 2008 BETWEEN Nagella Srihari Naidu. ... PETITIONER AND Velagapudi Radhakrishna Murthy. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. T.C. KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent: MR. SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner/judgment debtor questions the order of the executing Court passed in E.P.No.132 of 2006 in O.S.No.226 of 2004 dated 04.09.2008 holding that the judgment debtor has sufficient means but he is deliberately evading to discharge the decree debt and consequently, directed his arrest. 2. Heard both the learned counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out the statement of the petitioner/judgment debtor that pending the present suit, the properties were already attached and the said attachment is made absolute after decreeing the suit and the petitioner/judgment debtor has no objection for sale of those attached properties. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is bonafide in coming before the executing Court in offering to discharge the decree debt by selling the attached properties and therefore, it cannot be said that he is deliberately avoiding to discharge the debt and order of arrest is not warranted. 4. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner/judgment debtor has offered no objection for sale of attached properties but it is noticed that the attached properties are relatable to several creditors including the respondent/decree holder herein. The attached properties are said to be mortgaged with several banks and even if sale takes place, perhaps, even their liability may not be satisfied. The petitioner, therefore, is not justified in pointing out the attached properties to claim that he has no intention to avoid the decree. However, keeping in view the overall circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has already deposited half of the decretal amount with costs, as directed by interim order of this Court in CRPMP.No.5530 of 2008 dated 23.09.2008, only the other half remains to be paid. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if reasonable time is granted to the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the executing Court, as the same duly takes into consideration the conduct of the petitioner/judgment debtor and the satisfaction reached by the executing Court cannot be said to be perverse. However, in the interest of justice, petitioner is granted six (6) weeks time from today to deposit the balance 1/4th of the decretal amount and a further period of six (6) weeks from the date of such payment for deposit of balance amount. On such deposit, the respondent/decree holder shall be entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. In the event of default committed by the petitioner in paying the balance decretal amount in the installments, as mentioned above, the executing Court shall be free to execute the decree in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 15, 2011 Note: Office to communicate this order to the trial Court by 21.03.2011. (B/o) DSK