The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.3900 of 2010 Date: 30-08-2010 Between: Smt.B.Kantha Raja Kumari ..... Petitioner AND M.Sankarappa and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Mahadeva Kanthrigala Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following: Order: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 24-06-2010, in E.P.No.297 of 2009 in OS.No.542 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in the above- mentioned suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money and said suit was decreed, which has become final. The respondent filed E.P.No.297 of 2009, for execution of the said decree by way of attachment of the petitioner’s salary. After hearing both the parties, the Court below has allowed the said EP by directing attachment of the petitioner’s salary at Rs.10,833/- per month for a period of 24 months. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. At the hearing, Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client’s pay is only Rs.15,000/- per month and that attachment of a sum of Rs.10,833/- per month is too onerous. In support of his plea, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the salary particulars of the petitioner. A perusal of the document containing salary particulars of the petitioner discloses that while her basic pay is Rs.15,000/-, she is getting Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance @ Rs.9,000/- and 4,000/- respectively in addition thereto. In all, the petitioner is drawing a sum of Rs.28,000/- per month. In my opinion, the petitioner, being a headmistress and having allowed the decree to become final, has no justification, whatsoever, in not discharging the decretal liability. The petitioner, who is a chronic defaulter, has come to the Court with a false plea that she has repaid the amount. However, she failed to substantiate this plea by adducing any evidence. The petitioner also failed to point out any statutory infractions or legal infirmities from which the order under revision suffers. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CMP.No.5201 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 30th August, 2010 lur