HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.6250 of 2005 Dated 18-7-2011 Between: Chejarla Venkata Ramanacharyulu. …Petitioner. And: The Executive Officer Sri Chennakesavaswamy Temple, Kesavaswamy pet, Ongole and another.. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.6250 of 2005 ORDER: Petitioner is decree holder who has sought execution of compromise decree whereunder it was specifically agreed between the petitioner and 1st respondent that the petitioner shall be paid salary and other emoluments in terms of G.O.Ms.No.858 dated 8.10.1997 for the period from 1.6.97 till date. It would be appropriate to extract clauses 1 and 2 of the terms of compromise below: “1. That the appellant herein shall pay the arrears of salary to the Archakas i.e., Respondents from 1-4-1981 to 31-5-1997 Rs.900/- per month per each Archaka towards full satisfaction by withdrawing principal amount together with interest lying in court deposit in L.O.P.No.221/81 Sub Court, Ongole.” “2. that the appellant herein shall pay the salary and other emoluments to each of the Archakas in terms of G.O.Ms.No.858 dated 8-10-1997 from 1-6-1997 to till date.” 2. E.P. filed by the petitioner for enforcing the payment as envisaged under clause 2 above was however dismissed by the court below on the contention of the 1st respondent that even according to the petitioner, he has received consolidated amount of Rs.1,94,880/- at the rate of Rs.900/- per month from 1.4.1981 to 16.4.1999. Since that part of receiving Rs.1,94,880/- was admitted by the petitioner. The E.P. came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondents though served, nobody appears. 4. The impugned order shows that the allegations with regard to receiving the amounts as above relate to service of the petitioner as Upa Mukhya Archaka whereas the terms of compromise decree recognizes that the petitioner is an Archaka and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.858 dated 8.10.97, he shall be paid salary and other emoluments. If really, the petitioner was not an Archaka, the compromise decree would have specifically indicated as such and the 1st respondent would not have admitted the entitlement of the petitioner to the salary as an Archaka. That part was totally lost sight of by the executing Court while passing the impugned order. Moreover, the payments even if made to the petitioner including for the post to which the payment was made would be recorded in the records of the 1st respondent but those records are not produced before the court below and irrespective of the petitioner receiving salary as Upa Mukhya Archaka, his entitlement to the salary of an Archaka as agreed to in the compromise having not been paid to him, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable and accordingly, it is set aside. E.P. No.344 of 2002 shall stand restored before executing court and it shall conduct a proper enquiry and if the parties desire to produce additional documents, after giving opportunity therefor, shall pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation herein. 5. Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. _________________________________ Justice VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 18-7-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.6250 of 2005 Dated 18-7-2011