IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2173 of 2008 Between: Moturi Rajababu ..... PETITIONER AND Ghatta Bennayya Dhora .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2173 of 2008 O R D E R: Petitioner is the Judgment Debtor who suffered with a decree dated 21.09.2004 in O.S.707/2002 on the file of the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. As the decretal amount has not been paid, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.29/2005 for recovery of Rs.1,32,882/- by way of attachment and sale of the schedule mentioned properties under Or.21 Rules-64 and 66 CPC. The said E.P.29/2005 was allowed by order dated 20.09.2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram to bring the properties for sale and for realization of the outstanding amount under the decree. Thereafter, the petitioner filed unnumbered EA……./2007 in the said E.P.29/2005 seeking adjustment of Rs.20,000/- which is said to have been paid by the Judgment Debtor on 01.05.2005 and to record the said adjustment as having been made out of the Court. The said application filed under Or.21 Rule-2(2) and under Order 23 Rule-3 was rejected stating that any payment made outside the Court and contrary to the judgment and decree cannot be accepted. As there was no justification in the plea taken by the Judgment Debtor, the Court below rightly dismissed the said application by the impugned order dated 13.02.2008, against which this Civil Revision Petition is filed. This Court while issuing notice before admission, granted interim stay on condition of the petitioner depositing half of the decretal amount along with interest within a period of eight weeks. It is stated that half of the decretal amount was deposited. The judgment and decree have become final and in fact, the E.P. filed by the decree holder was also allowed permitting the decree holder to bring the property for sale for realization of the outstanding amount. As the judgment and decree in the suit and the order in E.P. have become final, there cannot be any justification in filing the application seeking adjustment of the amount said to have been made outside the Court. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the said application. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests three months time to pay the remaining E.P. amount. The learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder seriously opposed stating that the judgment and decree were passed as long back on 21.09.2004 and the E.P. was allowed on 20.09.2007 and therefore, there cannot be any justification in seeking further time for payment of the E.P. amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to pay the entire remaining E.P.amount along with subsequent interest, within a period of two months from today, failing which, it is open for the respondent/decree holder to proceed further pursuant to the order passed in E.P.29/2005 dated 20.09.2007. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 27.01.2011 Dsr