IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3720 of 2005 Between: Chandolu Butchaiah. ... PETITIONER AND Sure Venkata Subba Rao. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. J. Seshagiri Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J. Prabhakar The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is filed by the judgment debtor against the orders of the executing Court dated 06.07.2005 in E.P.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, ordering attachment and sale of the schedule property towards execution of decree in O.S.No.194 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Munisif Magistrate, Narsaraopet. 2. While the judgment debtor has approached this Court by this revision, by order dated 19.08.2005 while admitting the revision, interim stay of all further proceedings in EP was granted subject to the petitioner depositing half of the decretal amount within four weeks. The petitioner had complied with the said order. Thereafter, a further order was passed on 26.09.2006 directing that the petitioner shall deposit balance decretal amount also before 24.10.2006. The said order was not complied with on the ground that the petitioner was sick and the matter was adjourned from time to time. By a further order dated 25.04.2007 this Court directed that in the event of non-compliance with respect to the deposit of balance decretal amount, the stay granted earlier stands vacated. By a further order dated 29.10.2009 this Court directed the decree holder to withdraw half of the decretal amount deposited by the petitioner and with respect to the balance amount two more week’s time was granted. However, the said order was not complied with and though the CRP was heard on about five occasions thereafter, the petitioner has now come up with an extension application being CRPMP.No.2258 of 2010. By a separate order, the extension application has been ordered today. 3. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case, since the decree holder had already received half of the amount and as the other half amount is directed to be deposited within three months with a default clause, nothing survives for consideration in this revision petition. It is, therefore, reiterated that in the event of the petitioner’s default in depositing the balance decretal amount within three months the impugned order of the executing Court shall operate and the executing Court shall be free to proceed further. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed subject to the above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 22, 2010 DSK