THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 6087 of 2010 Dated: 18-03-2011 Between:- Madhala Venkata Ramana ….Petitioner And Manchala Tara Harish ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 6087 of 2010 Dated: 18-03-2011 Oral order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar and the learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder Sri N. Shiva Reddy. The revision is directed against the order dated 08-12-2010 of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, in E.P.No. 72 of 2010 in O.S.No. 224 of 2006. O.S.No. 224 of 2006 was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a promissory note debt. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, who adjudicated upon the suit, by the judgment and decree dated 23-07-2007 allowed the suit. Despite repeated claims of the decree holder, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor did not satisfy the decretal debt. The judgment debtor was residing in Kakinada and allegedly pursuing business in the name and style of Madala Packers and Movers. Hence the decree holder filed E.P.No. 72 of 2010 at Kakinada under Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) to send the revision petitioner/judgment debtor to civil prison for realization of the decretal debt. The Court below on a cogent and careful consideration of the evidence and material on record came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner-judgment debtor had ample means to satisfy the decretal debt but intentionally and deliberately failed to discharge the debt. Therefore, by the order impugned, the Execution Court directed the revision petitioner/judgment debtor to pay the entire debt within one month from the date of the order impugned failing which he should be committed to civil prison for a period of one month. This Court on 31-12-2010 while directing notice before admission granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order in E.P.No. 72 of 2010 in O.S.No. 224 of 2006, on condition that the revision petitioner/judgment debtor deposits an amount of Rs.80,000-00 (Rupees eighty thousand only) to the credit of E.P.No. 72 of 2010 by 18-01-2011. A default clause was super added. By the order dated 18-02-2011 this Court granted extension of time for depositing the amount to the credit of E.P.No. 72 of 2010, for a further period of two weeks from 18-02-2011. It is represented by the learned counsel for the respective parties that the amount has since been deposited by the revision petitioner. The amount of Rs.80,000-00 (Rupees eighty thousand only) deposited by the revision petitioner may be withdrawn by the respondent-decree holder. As there are no merits discernable warranting interference with the order of the Court below impugned herein, the revision petition requires to be dismissed. Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner pleads that the revision petitioner/judgment debtor has no liquidity to service the balance decretal debt and that some time may be afforded. Learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder faintly resists this plea but not stridently. In the facts and circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of directing the revision petitioner/judgment debtor to deposit the entire balance of the decretal debt including the costs awarded and interest, which is the subject matter of E.P.No. 72 of 2010 in O.S.No. 224 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kainada, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. In default of such deposit however the order dated 08- 12-2010 in E.P.No. 72 of 2010 in O.S.No. 224 of 2006 shall become operative and executable at once, on the occurrence of default and the revision petitioner/judgment debtor shall be liable to be committed to the civil prison for the period specified in the order impugned. Accordingly the revision petition is disposed of. There shall however be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 18-03-2011 Pvks/*