HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.570 OF 2011 DATE:01-04-2011 BETWEEN Nimmagadda Chinnappa …Petitioner AND M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., Eluru, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Branch Manager and others …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.570 OF 2011 ORDER: Judgment debtor No.5 filed this revision assailing the correctness of the order passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 15.11.2010 in allowing E.P.No.83 of 2004 in O.S.No.50 of 2002. Admittedly, the decree passed against the petitioner-guarantor is joint and several. For due execution of the decree, the above E.P. came to be filed against the judgment debtors including the petitioner. The lower Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that though the petitioner-judgment debtor No.5 is getting due income and though he can discharge the decretal amount from out of the salary received by him, he is not paying any amounts towards the decree nor expressed his intention nor volunteered for attachment of the salary, and therefore, it is sufficient to hold that he is avoiding to discharge the decretal debt and therefore, necessary arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner for realization of the decretal amount. While issuing notice before admission, this Court with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner, stayed the arrest of the petitioner on condition of his depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- within four weeks from 25.2.2011. In spite of the same, it is represented by the learned counsel for the first respondent-decree holder that the conditional order has not been complied by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Head Master. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that though having sufficient means the petitioner is not interested to discharge the liability incurred by him as per the decree. Therefore, no illegality is discernable with the discretion exercised by the lower Court in allowing the E.P. warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. APRIL 01, 2011 Tsr.