THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.4401 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.31 of 1999 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.46,468/-, on 15-06-2001. The decree became final. The 1st respondent died, and his legal representatives filed E.P.No.95 of 2007, under Rules 37 and 38 of Order XXI C.P.C. They pleaded that the petitioner is not complying with the decree, though he is possessed of adequate means. The petitioner contested the E.P. Through its order dated 03- 08-2009, the Executing Court directed the detention of the petitioner in civil prison. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner claims to be a weaver and states that he is not in a position to comply with the decree. Across the Bar, it is stated that petitioner may not be in a position to earn independently, other family members, viz., sons are employed, and there does not exist any difficulty for them to comply with the decree. While issuing notice before admission in the C.R.P., this Court granted interim stay on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month. The averment of the respondents, that the son of the petitioner is employed, is not denied. Even an unskilled labourer is able to earn more than Rs.2,000/- per month, now a days. Hence, the C.R.P. is disposed of, directing that, a) the order under revision shall stand set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to the credit of the E.P., on or before 5th of every month, commencing from January, 2010; b) the respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the amount, which is in deposit, as well as the one, that may be deposited in future, without furnishing any security; and a) if the petitioner commits default in payment of two consecutive installments, the order under revision would revive, and the Executing Court shall enforce the same against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04-12-2009. KO