THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 1691 of 2009 Dated: 09-10-2009 Between:- Jarubula Ankamma and another. ..Petitioners. And Shri Ram Chits (P) Limited, Rep., by its Foreman-cum-Branch Manager, Ongole, Prakasam District and others. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 1691 of 2009 Oral Order: This revision by the defendants No. 4 and 2 in O.S.No. 169 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and respondent Nos. 4 and 2 in E.P.No. 04 of 2009, is directed against the order dated 24-03-2009 in E.A.No. 304 of 2009 in E.P.No. 04 of 2009 in O.S.No. 169 of 2003, filed for execution of the decree in O.S.No. 169 of 2003 which is confirmed by the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole dated 13- 10-2008 in A.S.No. 02 of 2008. The revision petitioners stood surety for the liability of the 2nd respondent herein in respect of a chit transaction with the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had filed the suit for recovery of the amounts due by the 2nd respondent herein duly impleading the revision petitioners and 3rd respondent herein as well (the petitioners and respondent No.3 herein being sureties to the chit transaction). The trial Court and the appellate Court concurrently found that the 2nd respondent is liable and consequently decreed the suit which was confirmed in appeal. For realization of the decretal debt due from the principal borrower and the sureties, E.P.No. 04 of 2009 was filed i.e., for an amount ofRs.3,28,624-00. The execution petitioner-1st respondent herein had sought attachment of the moveables of the revision petitioners under Order-XXI Rule 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the other judgment debtors are residing outside the jurisdiction of the executing Court and that the 1st judgment debtor’s moveables were already under attachment. As a huge amount was involved and there was no alternative to recover the decretal debt, the application – E.A.No.304 of 2009 is said to have been filed by the 1st respondent for the relief as sought. The Court below by the order impugned granted attachment of moveables as prayed for. No error in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the Court below is discernable, warranting interference. Ms. Lalitha, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners urges that time may be granted for repayment of the decretal amount by the revision petitioners. This contention does not commend acceptance by this Court. The trial Court at the specific request of the defendants including the petitioners herein had granted five (5) month’s time from the date of decree, for repayment of the decretal amount by the 1st defendant, duly observing that in case of default in repayment, the plaintiff would be at liberty to proceed to recover the amount by execution proceedings. No case is made out for extending time or for granting further time for repayment. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 09-10-2009