THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2016 of 2010 (Dated : 06-04-2011) Between: M/s.Thirumala H & The Contractors Rep. by its Managing Partner, Vijay Kumar …Petitioner A n d Central Warehousing Corporation and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2016 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.64 of 2006 on the file of the District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 2. The disputes between the petitioner-Judgment debtor and the 1st respondent-Decree Holder came to be referred to an Arbitrator and thereupon, the Arbitrator passed an award dated 02.12.2004. Dissatisfied by the amount awarded by the Arbitrator, the 1st respondent-Decree Holder filed O.P.No.958 of 2005 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said O.P came to be allowed modifying the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. 3. Before the order of the Civil Court, the 1st respondent-Decree Holder filed E.P.No.64 of 2006 for realization of the amount granted by the Arbitrator. Pending E.P., the Civil Court granted additional amount modifying the award. Consequently, the 1st respondent-Decree Holder filed E.A.No.85 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment with regard to the claim amount. The said E.A came to be allowed by the District Judge, Mahabubnagar, by order dated 7.4.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 05.5.2010. The 1st respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Civil Court is the subject matter in C.M.A.No.910 of 2009 and therefore, there is no finality to the order passed by the Civil Court and in which case, the amendment application filed by the 1st respondent-Decree Holder seeking amendment of the claim amount is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that though the petitioner filed C.M.A and secured an interim order subject to payment of Rs.2 lacs, and as the petitioner failed to comply the said condition, there is no order in his favour as on this day. This factual aspect has not been contradicted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. The amendment application by the Decree Holder is consequent on the decree granted by the Civil Court in O.P.No.958 of 2005. There is no flaw in the order passed by the executing Court warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.06-04-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2016 of 2010 (Dated : 06-04-2011)