HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5597 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, filed this revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in E.P.No.52 of 2008 in L.A.O.P. No. 792 of 1996, dated 29.08.2008, whereby he was directed to deposit the entire decreetal amount by 30.09.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that as against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.792 of 1996, AS(SR).No.30735 of 1998, along with a petition to condone the delay, was filed on the file of this Court and the same is pending. By order dated 09.09.1998 in CMP.No.17973 of 1998, this Court granted conditional stay on the petitioner depositing half of the decreetal amount. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor submits that since this Court, by order dated 09.09.1998, in CMP.No.17973 of 1998 in AS(SR).No.30735 of 1998, had granted stay subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the decreetal amount, the Court below ought not to have directed the petitioner to deposit the entire decreetal amount. Learned Counsel for the respondent-decree holder submits that, in fact, the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 09.09.1998, in CMP.No.17973 of 1998 in AS(SR).No.30735 of 1998, granted conditional stay and as the petitioner-judgment debtor had not complied with the aforesaid order, this Court, by order dated 29.08.2005 in AS.CMP.No.15 of 2005 in CMP.No.17973 of 1998 in AS(SR).No.30735 of 1998, vacated the stay and, thereafter, E.P.No. 52 of 2008 was filed by the respondent and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned District Judge directing the petitioner to deposit the entire decreetal amount is illegal and unsustainable. The respondent-decree holder is seeking execution of the decree. Merely because, the learned Judge had directed to deposit the entire decreetal amount does not mean depositing the entire decreetal amount without giving credit to the amount already deposited. Execution Petition itself was filed for realization of the decreetal amount and the petitioner-judgment debtor is liable to pay the E.P. amount. As no stay is existing in the pending AS(SR).No.30735 of 1998, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks some reasonable time to deposit the entire E.P. amount. The petitioner is permitted to deposit the entire E.P. amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondent-decree holder is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Failing which, it is always open to the decree holder to execute the decree. No order as to costs. V. ESWARAIAH,J Date:16.12.2010 usd