IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2493 OF 2010 BETWEEN: K.Gopala Krishna Rao and others …PETITIONERS AND Syndicate Bank, represented by its Senior Manager. …RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2493 OF 2010 O R D E R: The revision is filed against the order of the lower Court in E.P.No.122 of 2008 in PLAC No.934 of 2008 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, ordering the arrest of the revision petitioners, who are the judgment debtors. 2. A decree was passed before the Lok Adalat for a sum of Rs.2,38,647/- on 06.02.2008 with a condition that the amount shall be paid in two instalments. 1st instalment shall be paid on or before 31.03.2008 and the 2nd instalment shall be paid on or before 30.06.2008. As both the instalments were not paid, the execution petition was filed and after considering the contentions, the lower Court has ordered the arrest of the judgment debtors. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. 3. The point that arise for consideration is whether the judgment debtors have got means to pay the amount and failed to pay the same in order to defeat and delay the decree? 4. In support of the claim of the petitioners, PW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. The revision petitioner have not gone into box to deny their liability to pay the decretal amount or lack of means. On the other hand, Exs.A.2 to A.4 were filed showing the assets and liabilities of judgment debtors 1 to 3. 5. Evidently, the respondents are Government employees and the judgment debtors 1 and 2 are said to be employees of Labour Court at Hyderabad. The 1st judgment debtor is also retired from service and must have got substantial amounts. 6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the contention that they have no means to pay the debt cannot be accepted. However, it is represented that in pursuance of the orders of this Court, a sum of Rs.95,000/- has been deposited while granting stay. The decree-holder has not withdrawn that amount and that can be withdrawn. As rightly contended by the counsel for the decree-holder, there seems to be an attempt to delay the payments. However, the counsel for the judgment debtors pleads some time for payment of the decretal amount. 7. In view of the above circumstances, the judgment debtors are given six months time to complete the discharge of the decretal amount (entire amount as on today) by paying the amount in six equal monthly instalments. The failure to pay any one consecutive instalment entitles the decree-holder to proceed with the execution and the arrest as ordered. 8. With the above direction, the revision is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 13-04-2011. Note: C.C. within three (03) days. B/o. INL