THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1470 OF 2011 DATE:21.09.2011 BETWEEN MANCHIKANTI SUDHAKAR …PETITIONER AND SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO (p) LTD & OTHERS. …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1470 OF 2011 ORDER: The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.2.2011 passed in E.P.No:125 of 2009 in A.R.C.1564 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, allowing the E.P. The revision petitioner is the 1st judgment debtor and the 1st respondent is the decree holder. The decree holder filed E.P. 125 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C and section 55 C.P.C for realization of the decreetal amount of Rs.1,80,000/- by way of sending the judgment debtor to Civil prison. By order dated 10.2.2011, the Court below allowed the E.P with costs while permitting the petitioner-judgment debtor to pay the decreetal amount in 10 equal monthly installments and while making it clear that in the event of failure to pay any installment, arrest warrant can be issued for detention in civil prison for the purpose of making payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. The learned counsel for the judgment debtor would submit that the execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 37 read with section 55 C.P.C for realization of the decreetal amount filed by the decree holder is not maintainable on the ground that the decree holder has not availed the alternative remedy as contemplated under section 51 C.P.C whereunder the execution Court has to afford an opportunity to the judgment debtor to show cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison. He would further contend that various modes have been contemplated under the provisions of section 51 C.P.C for recovery of the decreetal amount. But, neither of them has been followed and straightaway, the decree holder filed the execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C. Therefore, the order under revision suffers from illegality and irregularity. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the decree holder would submit that when once the award made in A.R.C.1564 of 2007 is in force, the same is binding on the judgment debtor and in spite of the subsistence of the said decree, the judgment debtor did not comply with the same. Therefore, the decree holder filed E.P.125 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C for realization of the decreetal amount by sending the petitioner-judgment debtor to Civil prison. He would further submit that an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner-judgment debtor to take the plea available to him under law and during his evidence, he pleaded for payment of the decreetal amount on installment basis and in view of the same, the Court below has permitted the judgment debtor to pay the decreetal amount by way of installments without the consent of the decree holder as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 11 (2) C.P.C. When once the petitioner-judgment debtor as R.W.1 admitted in his evidence as to the claim under the decree and sought for payment of the same by way of installments, the question of applying the provisions under section 51 C.P.C, under which, some other modes have been indicated for the purpose of recovery of the decreetal amount before going to seek for detention of the judgment debtor in a civil prison, does not arise. In the instant case, according to the decree holder, the judgment debtor is running a Xerox machine and also doing business in the name and style of Lakshmi Ganapathi Tele Links and earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. whereas according to the judgment debtor, the said business is being run by his brother in law and he is working only as a clerk. Now in the present revision, it is the case of the judgment debtor that the quantum of amount due by him is huge amount and therefore, granting of only 10 installments for such huge amount, is not just and proper. At this stage, it is to be noted that the scope of the revision is very limited whereunder it can be examined as to the illegality or irregularity of the order impugned alone. It is apparent on the face of record that while exercising its discretion to grant installments, the Court below has applied its mind in consonance with the provisions of Order 20 R-11 (2) C.P.C while considering the capacity of the petitioner-judgment debtor. For these reasons and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner-judgment debtor has been permitted to pay the decreetal amount by way of monthly installments, I am of the view that his approach before this Court on the ground that the 10- instalments granted by this Court is not sufficient to discharge the decreetal amount, does not appear to be a bonafide one and the said approach amounts to abuse of process of the Courts and also to draw an adverse inference that he wants to drag on the proceedings on one pretext or the other and therefore, the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The revision petition is thereby liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Gurc. Date:21.09.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1470 OF 2011 DATE:21.09.2011