HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4969 OF 2009 DATE:18-11-2011 BETWEEN Alapati Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner AND Polavarapu Lingaiah and others …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4969 OF 2009 ORDER: For due execution of the decree obtained in O.S.No.283 of 2004, decree holder-first respondent herein filed E.P.No.141 of 2008. The executing Court by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009 allowed the petition by issuing arrest warrant against the judgment debtors on payment of batta holding that the judgment debtor No.1- petitioner herein owns and possesses a house in Peda Pulipaka Village, that the Judgment debtor-petitioner is cultivating the land and withdrawing the amounts but failed to discharge the suit debt. Holding so the executing Court held that the judgment debtor- petitioner herein is deliberately avoiding to pay the decretal amount and accordingly allowed the E.P. This Court while issuing notice before admission, stayed the arrest of the petitioner, who is judgment debtor No.1 unconditionally on 23.10.2009. But on 30.9.2011 this Court made the stay granted on 23.10.2009 absolute on condition of petitioner depositing half of the decretal amount to the credit of the E.P. within a period of three weeks making it clear that in default, the stay shall stand vacated. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions as to whether the conditional order has been complied with or not. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is deliberately avoiding to discharge the decretal amount, which has been established by the decree holder by cogent evidence, I see no infirmity with the impugned order passed by the executing Court warranting interference by this Court. If the petitioner has already complied the conditional order passed by this Court on 30.9.2011, he is permitted to pay the balance decretal amount by the end of December, 2011. If the said amount is not paid by the petitioner, the executing Court is at liberty to execute the warrant. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 18, 2011 Tsr.