IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4391 OF 2008 Between: Boga Satyanarayan … Petitioner And Dhuli Madhava Rao and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4391 of 2008 ORDER:- Judgment debtor No.2 is in revision against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram in allowing E.P.No.29 of 2007 in O.S.No.366 of 2003. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1/decree holder obtained a decree against both the judgment debtors for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- and filed E.P. for Rs.1,62,806.55 ps. The objection of the petitioner is that the decree holder already filed E.P.No.54 of 2006 for attachment of the petition schedule property with regard to D.No.13-1-1997, Pathagolla street, Krishna temple, Pithapuram and unless he exhausted the said remedy, he cannot file the said application for arrest of the judgment debtors. The trial court after elaborately considering the rival contentions and the evidence adduced by both the parties held that since the evidence of P.W.1 is unrebutted and though the judgment debtors are having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, they are avoiding to discharge the decretal amount and in the absence of any bar, decree holder can proceed simultaneously for sale of immovable property and for arrest of the judgment debtors. Holding so, the trial court rightly allowed the E.P. ordering for issue of arrest warrant on judgment debtor No.2 for due realization. In spite of suggestion made to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether judgment debtor No.2 is agreeable to deposit any part of the decretal amount, no positive response from the counsel and since there is no bar from the executing court to execute the decree against immovable property for recovery of decretal amount, the discretion exercised by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 16th April 2010 lmv