HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.839 of 2010 DATE:30.03.2010 Between: Thirumalareddi Raja Reddy … Petitioner and Rampa Sambhasadasiva Reddy and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.839 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.473 of 2005, against the petitioner, in the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Railway, Kodur, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed on 23.07.2007. Since the petitioner did not comply with the decree, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.19 of 2009, under Rules 37 and 38 of C.P.C. It was pleaded that though the petitioner is possessed of adequate means, he did not pay the decretal amount. The petitioner opposed the E.P. After conducting trial, the executing court allowed the E.P., through its order, dated 15.02.2010, and directed arrest of the petitioner and his confinement in civil prison. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. The decree, dated 23.07.2007, passed in O.S.No.473 of 2005, against the petitioner, has become final. The 1st respondent specifically pleaded that the petitioner is possessed of adequate means. The appearance of the petitioner was caused and evidence was recorded as required under the relevant provisions of law. The 1st respondent deposed as P.W.1 and filed Ex.P.1, Adangal issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Mukkavaripalli, which discloses that the petitioner has possessed Acs.4-20 cents of agricultural land. On behalf of the petitioner, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked. 4. The petitioner does not dispute that he is working as L.I.C. agent and that he is possessed of landed property. In addition to that, he is said to be owner of two houses at Korlakunta Cross Road. These resources are sufficient for him to meet the liability under the decree. Inasmuch as the petitioner did not choose to comply with the decree, the executing court has correctly ordered his arrest and confinement in civil prison. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be extended the benefit of paying the decretal amount in instalments. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent has opposed this. 6. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is possessed of the properties, it would be difficult for him to pay the entire decretal amount at a time. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be extended the benefit of paying the decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs.10,000/- each, commencing from April, 2010. 7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, upholding the order under revision, but directing that (a) the petitioner shall be entitled to pay the decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs.10,000/- each, payable on or before 10th of every month, commencing from April, 2010; (b) the order under revision shall remain abeyance, as long as the monthly instalments are paid promptly. If the petitioner commits default, the order shall become operative; and © the 1st respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the monthly instalments, as and when deposited by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 30th March, 2010. Note: Furnish C.C. by tomorrow. (b/o) CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.839 of 2010 (Disposed of) 30th March, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by tomorrow. (b/o) CBS