HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3158 OF 2008 DATE:18-02-2011 BETWEEN Vemuru Satyanarayana Prasad …Petitioner AND Madepalli Venkata Swamy …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3158 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed by the judgment debtor against the orders of the executing Court allowing E.P.No.36 of 2007 in O.S.No.21 of 2004 and ordering for sale of the E.P. schedule property for due discharge of the decretal amount in O.S.No.21 of 2004, where, the plaintiff’s suit for a sum of Rs.2,46,200/- with interest on the principal amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs has been decreed. Pending the revision, this Court by order, dated 01.8.2008 stayed the execution of the proceedings subject to condition of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with suit costs within a period of six weeks from that date. The events that took place thereafter have been detailed by this Court in order, dated 4.2.2011, which reads thus: “As seen from the proceedings sheet, this Court, on 01.08.2008, while issuing notice before admission, stayed the execution of proceedings subject to condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with suit costs within a period of six weeks from that date. However, the petitioner had not complied with the said interim order and filed C.R.P.M.P.No.4606 of 2008 seeking extension of time. By order, dated 26.9.2008, time was extended to comply with the conditional order dated 01.08.2008 and the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- more and upon such deposit, the respondent-decree holder was permitted to withdraw the same. Thereafter, by order dated 28.11.2008, again time was extended to comply with the conditional order dated 26.9.2008. However, the petitioner had not complied with the said order and filed CRPMP.No.3789 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 26.6.2009 extended the time for a further period of three weeks. Subsequently, on 10.7.2009, time was extended by eight more weeks subject to condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, on 28.8.2009, the matter was adjourned by two weeks subject to condition of the petitioner complying with the order dated 01.8.2008, in default, the interim stay stands vacated. Thereafter also the matter was adjourned on six occasions i.e. on 06.02.2009, 20.03.2009, 02.04.2009, 19.06.2009, 13.08.2010 and 08.10.2010, since on all the said dates, either the counsel for the petitioner was absent or request was made for adjournment. From the above, it is clear that the interim stay initially granted on 01.8.2008, was extended from time to time till 28.8.2009, and thereafter it was not extended. In view of the same, the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada is at liberty to proceed with E.P.No.36 of 2007 in O.S.No.21 of 2004, dated 20.6.2008. Post the C.R.P. for dismissal on 18.02.2011.” Learned counsel for the petitioner now contends that so far, a sum f Rs.88,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner and she seeks some more time for deposit of the balance amount. But the learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder denies about the deposit of the said amount. Once the decree passed by the civil court has become final, the executing court is bound to allow the E.P. No illegality is discernable with the impugned order passed by the lower Court warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 18, 2011 Tsr.