THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.598 OF 2009 DATED:24.03.2011 Between: M.Surekha Reddy. .... PETITIONER And M/s Vijay Bhargavi Chit Fund (P) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad & 4 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 21.01.2009, in I.A.No.426 of 2008 in O.S.No.1534 of 1999 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-6th defendant seeking permission to pay the decretal amount by instalments @ Rs.5000/- per month, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. It is not disputed that the 1st respondent herein- plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under a chit agreement and the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.1,94,000/- on 08.08.2008 with subsequent interest @ 12%p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,76,000/-. The suit was filed in 1999 and the decree was passed on 08.08.2008. Thereafter, petitioner-6th defendant filed I.A.No.426 of 2008 seeking permission to pay the decretal amount by way of instalments on the ground that the petitioner-6th defendant has no sufficient income to pay in lumpsum. Admittedly, petitioner-6th defendant is an agriculturist having Ac.4.00 of wet land and Ac.4.00 of dry land and is getting income of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,30,000/- per year. 4. 1st respondent filed a counter opposing the same. The trial Court by impugned order, dismissed the application observing that during the trial proceedings, petitioner-6th defendant never pleaded any incapacity to pay the decretal amount and on the other hand she claimed Rs.2,20,000/- from the plaintiff, being the subscriber to chits. As rightly observed by the trial Court, petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show that the agricultural income is only Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,30,000/- per annum. Petitioner has gained more than 2½ years since the passing of the decree on 08.08.2008. Petitioner has not chosen to pay any amount towards the decree debt during the said period of 2½ years to show her bonafides. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th March, 2011. Tsy