THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5750 of 2010 Dated: 18-03-2011 Between: Nakka Krishna Murthy …Petitioner And Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by is Manager Satti Ravi Shankar, Amalapuram, East Godavari District and others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5750 of 2010 Dated: 18-03-2011 Oral order: This revision is by the 3rd judgment debtor and defendant in O.S.No.466 of 2004 aggrieved by the order dated 30-11-2010 in E.P.No. 31 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit for realization of the dues under chit fund agreements. The revision petitioner was the 3rd defendant in the suit and was a guarantor of the chit amount. The principal debtor is the 2nd respondent herein. The suit was decreed on 21-10-2005 against all the defendants. No amount was however paid by any of the judgment debtors, in satisfaction of the decree. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No. 31 of 2010 under Order XXI Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) for arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison after issuing show cause notice for realization of the decretal amount. The Executing Court by the order impugned after cogent and considered analysis of the facts on record rightly came to the conclusion that the judgment debtor Nos. 3 and 5 have sufficient means to pay the decretal amount but nevertheless neglected to pay the same, willfully. The 5th judgment debtor was called absent despite the directions of the Court. The revision petitioner/3rd judgment debtor had informed the court that he is going to file an insolvency petition. Against the order of the Court below directing arrest and detention in civil prison, the 3rd judgment debtor has filed this revision. No case is made out for revisional interference in the circumstances. It also requires to be noticed that on 13-12-2010 while directing notice before admission in this revision, this Court granted interim stay of arrest subject to the condition that the revision petitioner deposits fifty (50%) per cent of the decretal amount together with costs and interest within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of order. A default clause was also super added. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the conditional order of this Court has not been complied with. For all the above reasons, this revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 18-03-2011 Pvks/*