THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2165 OF 2011 Dated: 17.06.2011 Between : Vemulapalli Narendra Babu … Petitioner And Mulpuri Satyanarayana … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2165 OF 2011 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30.05.2011 in E.A.No.373 of 2010 in E.P.No.132 of 2008 in O.S.No.354 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.354 of 2004 filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.1,29,540/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit to decree and at the rate of 6% p.a. till realisation. Pursuant thereto, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.132 of 2008 for execution of the decree. Pending the said E.P., the Revision petitioner/J.Dr. filed E.A.No.373 of 2010 under Order 20 Rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking permission to pay the decretal amount in installments. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 30.05.2011 and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, the petitioner sought for payment of decretal amount in installments pleading that except the agricultural earnings, he had no other source of income and therefore he had no capacity to discharge the entire suit amount at a time. However the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to establish his financial status. In the absence of any such evidence, the Court below disbelieved the plea that he was unable to pay the decretal amount at a time and accordingly dismissed the application. Except the vague plea in the affidavit, admittedly no oral or documentary evidence was produced before the Court below. Even before this Court nothing could be placed by the petitioner to establish his plea that he was unable to pay the decretal amount at a time. Therefore, the finding of fact recorded by the Court below warrants no interference and consequently the order under Revision cannot be held to have suffered from any material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.06.2011 gbs