IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1518 OF 2009 Between: V.K.Siraj ..... PETITIONER AND M/S The Hindupur Mutual Benefit Permanent Fund Ltd., Hindupur Rep. by its President K.Satyanarayana and others .... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1518 OF 2009 O R D E R: The revision petitioner is judgment debtor No.3 in E.P.No.20 of 2006 in O.S.No.273 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The 1st respondent herein is the decree holder in whose favour O.S.No.273 of 2001 was decreed for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,260/- with costs and interest at 6% per annum. The decree holder/1st respondent herein filed the E.P.No.20 of 2006 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of Civil Procedure Code for arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison alleging that in spite of having sufficient means, the judgment debtor failed to pay the decretal amount. A counter affidavit was filed stating that the judgment debtor had no means to pay the decretal amount. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Court below and on appreciation of the same, a finding was recorded that the judgment debtor got sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. Accordingly, by order dated 05.05.2008 the E.P. was allowed against the judgment debtor No.3. So far as judgment debtors 1 and 2 were concerned, E.P. was dismissed as not pressed. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor No.3 filed the present revision petition. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Court below that the judgment debtor No.3 had sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. In the circumstances, the interference by this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, eight weeks time is granted to the revision petitioner for depositing the entire decretal amount in the Court below. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within the time fixed above, the 1st respondent herein/decree holder is at liberty to take the necessary further steps pursuant to the order under revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 23.04.2010 Ivd