IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1758 OF 2007 BETWEEN Sandu Ranga Rao. …PETITIONER AND Muppala Krishna. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: MR. G.V.N. PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: - ORDER: This is a judgment debtor’s revision against the order of the executing Court in E.P.No.642 of 2005 in O.S.No.1036 of 1999 dated 23.03.2007 holding that he is a salaried employee working as a Clerk in the Taluk Treasury Office but has not shown any intention to pay the amount covered by the decree and consequently, a warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against him. 2. This Court granted interim stay, while admitting the revision, on a condition of the petitioner depositing half of the decretal amount by order dated 13.04.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner reports that the said order is complied with. The respondent in this case has not been served, though the revision is pending for the last three years. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner is a salaried employee and allegedly, drawing a monthly salary of about Rs.12,000/-, I am of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference and the revision petition is meritless. 3. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already deposited half of the amount in pursuance of the interim order, I deem it appropriate to grant time to the petitioner till the end of September, 2010 i.e. 30.09.2010. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is drawing only Rs.6,000/- per month. 4. In view of the fact that three years have gone by pending the revision, the petitioner being a salaried employee must deposit the balance decretal amount within the time stipulated above, failing which the executing Court shall be free to proceed with the execution in accordance with law. The amount said to have been deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order as well as the amount directed to be deposited as hereinabove, shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the decree holder without furnishing any security. Subject to the above, the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 8, 2010 DSK