THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.569 of 2007 Dated 28th January, 2011 Between: K.Bhaskar Naidu …Petitioner And B.V.Nanda Kishore …Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.569 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order, dated 03-11- 2006 in O.E.P.No.295 of 2005 in O.S.No.197 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The petitioner herein is the decree holder in the said O.E.P. The executing Court dismissed the O.E.P, on the ground that the suit costs, which were disallowed by the trial Court were claimed in the execution petition and that therefore the petitioner has not approached it with clean hands. Heard Sri N.Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner/decree holder. Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, representing Sri Manjunath Allur, learned counsel for the respondent is present. The only point that arises for determination in this civil revision petition is: “Whether the executing Court i.e., the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle was correct in dismissing the O.E.P.No.295 of 2005 on its file on the ground that the decree holder included the suit costs, which were disallowed by the trial Court, which decreed the suit?” The point arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner herein obtained a money decree in O.S.No.197 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The decretal amount was Rs.69,099/- together with further interest. He filed O.E.P.No.295 of 2005 seeking execution of the said decree against the Judgment debtor, by his arrest. The trial Court after hearing both sides found that the suit costs of Rs.7,669/-, which were disallowed by the trial Court, were included in the E.P and therefore, on that ground alone, it dismissed the O.E.P holding that the decree holder did not approach it with clean hands. The learned counsel for the petitioner/decree holder says that the executing Court could have excluded the disallowed suit costs from the O.E.P amount and considered O.E.P for the balance and could have disposed it of on merits, instead of dismissing it on the ground that the suit costs were included in the O.E.P. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient force in the above contention of the petitioner’s counsel. The executing Court could have, as well, excluded the disallowed costs and could have considered the O.E.P on merits and disposed it of, one way or the other. In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter should be sent back to the executing Court with a direction to it to dispose of the O.E.P on merits, excluding the suit costs which were disallowed by the trial Court from the O.E.P amount. Accordingly, the point is decided in favour of the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and remanding back the matter to the executing Court with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 28th January, 2011 VJL