IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3516 of 2005 BETWEEN Valluri Venkatachalam. ... PETITIONER AND Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. V. MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR ARBITRATTION The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner is a decree holder, who was granted compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is now settled finally and only the execution of the decree remains. While the petitioner received part of the amount under the decree under EP.Nos.34 of 1997 and 205 of 2000, he filed the present EP.No.101 of 2002 for recovery of balance amount of Rs.5,19,737.10 ps. with costs and subsequent interest and arrest of the respondent/judgment debtor was also sought for under Order 21 Rule 38 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. The executing Court, however, by order dated 29.04.2005 dismissed the EP under the impugned order by observing that the judgment debtor has paid Rs.12 lakhs and odd earlier and Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited to the credit of the present EP, which shows that they are neither negligent nor there is delay on their part. Thus, while refusing the order of arrest, the EP itself was dismissed by observing that the petitioner/decree holder is at liberty to take steps for realization of the balance amount according to law. That order is questioned by the petitioner in this revision. 3. Heard both the learned counsel on either side. 4. The memo of calculation filed by the petitioner/decree holder as well as the findings of the Court below in para 6 of the impugned order shows that there is no controversy with regard to the balance amount due and payable. However, merely because the respondent has deposited part amount, there was no reason for the executing Court to dismiss the EP itself. Further, the dismissal of EP has effectively rendered petitioner remediless and such situation occasioned on account of the impugned order cannot be allowed to be sustained. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The executing Court shall now take up EP.No.101 of 2002 afresh and after giving due opportunity to both sides shall hear and pass appropriate orders including the orders for recovery of balance EP amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 8, 2011 DSK