IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.784 of 2011 Between: Sadu Ravinder Kumar .. Petitioner AND M/s. Margadarsi Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.784 of 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.809 of 2010 in O.S.No.145 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, at Miryalguda, dated 03.02.2011. 2. The trial Court fixed an instalment of Rs.6,000/- per month in respect of the first defendant payable by 10th of every month commencing from 10.03.2011 towards satisfaction of the decree in O.S.No.145 of 2008. Before passing the order, the trial Court took into account the contentions of the learned counsel for the decree holder to fix the instalment at Rs.10,000/- per month and the submission on behalf of the revision petitioner about his basic pay being only Rs.15,000/- per month and his son and himself suffering injuries due to which they were subjected to heavy medical expenses, etc. The decree holder was given a liberty to collect the entire decreetal debt in lump sum in case of default by the first judgment debtor. 3. The judgment debtor challenged the said order herein contending that the entire salary has to be paid towards the instalments if the rate at which the trial Court ordered were to be complied with and O.S.No.145 of 2008 resulted only in an ex parte decree and not a contested decree. The revision petitioner claimed to have deposited 1/4th of the decreetal amount already and he further stated that his net salary after deductions is only Rs.15,700/- per month, whereas he met with an accident on 14.09.2010 and his son also met with an accident and both of them are subjected to heavy medical expenses apart from his mother, suffering from diseases of backbone and kidneys, undergoing a major operation. The revision petitioner, therefore, desired that appropriate orders may kindly be passed keeping in view that he is also paying three more chits at Rs.18,000/- per month. 4. While ordering notice before admission, a learned Judge of this Court directed interim stay subject to the condition of the revision petitioner paying Rs.4,000/- per month on or before 10th of every succeeding month while making the interim stay conditional on regular payment of instalments. 5. Heard Sri Challa Shiva Shanker, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the first respondent/decree holder. Respondents 2 to 4, the other judgment debtors under the decree, were stated to be not necessary parties to this revision. 6. The point for consideration is the entitlement of the first defendant/revision petitioner to any concession in the instalments fixed by the trial Court by the impugned order. 7. The material papers enclosed to the revision petition show that as on 08.07.2010, the pay of the revision petitioner was fixed at Rs.15,280/-. The material papers also show that in C.R.P.No.305 of 2009, between the revision petitioner and another decree holder, this Court passed an order on 09.04.2009 permitting him to pay the decree debt at Rs.3,000/- per month as against the order of the trial Court permitting him to pay at Rs.8,000/- per month. The decree in O.S.No.145 of 2008 is for a sum of Rs.1,93,419/- with future interest at 9% per annum on Rs.1,75,000/- and costs of Rs.11,915/-. The decree was joint and several against four defendants, the other three defendants obviously being the guarantors for the first defendant. 8. The quantum of salary of the revision petitioner, the fact that he is also liable to pay another decree debt in monthly instalments of Rs.3,000/- and that he has the liabilities referred to before the trial Court and this Court to be met within his salary income apart from meeting the minimum needs of maintenance of himself and his family have to be taken into account in fixing an appropriate quantum of monthly instalment for payment of the decree. 9. Sri A. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the first respondent, brought to the notice of this Court the decision reported in S. PREM SINGH & ANOTHER VS. M B S PURUSHOTHAM[1], wherein the learned Judge (as His Lordship then was) pointed out that the state amendment which applied to the State of Andhra Pradesh prior to the Central Amendment Act of 1976 no longer applied and the consent of the decree holder is a condition precedent for granting instalments after the passing of the decree. The facts herein show that the learned counsel for the decree holder has entered his appearance before the trial Court and had only requested for fixation of the instalments at Rs.10,000/-, but had not opposed the request of the first defendant for permission to pay the decree holder in instalments. It was only the judicial discretion exercised by the Court in fixing the quantum that is in question, but not the jurisdiction to fix the instalment. Even otherwise, the order of the trial Court fixing the monthly instalments at Rs.6,000/- per month is not challenged by the decree holder in any manner and, therefore, the decision cited is distinguishable and the fixing of the quantum of monthly instalments is within the revisional jurisdiction of this Court when the order granting instalments is not in dispute and it is only the quantum that is in dispute. 10. The learned Judge, while passing the interim order on 09.03.2011, had obviously taken into account all the circumstances relevant for the purpose and confirming the same rate of instalment for the future also would be meeting the requirements of equity and justice in the present case. However, it should be made clear that the permission granted to the first defendant/first judgment debtor to pay the decree debt in instalments has absolutely no relevance to the other judgment debtors under the decree who were obviously not parties to I.A.No.809 of 2010 in O.S.No.145 of 2008 or this revision petition. 11. With the above clarification, the order, dated 03.02.2011, in I.A.No.809 of 2010 in O.S.No.145 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Miryalguda, is modified by fixing the monthly instalment at Rs.4,000/- per month and otherwise confirming the same. 12. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18th April, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.784 of 2011 Date: 18th April, 2011 KL [1] 1988 (2) APLJ 110 (HC)