IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.862 OF 2008 Between: P. Mallikarjun. - - - Revision Petitioner/ Judgment Debtor. AND K. Sivasankara Reddy.. - - - Respondent/ Decree Holder. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.862 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in E.P. No.69 of 2005 in O.S. No.289 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Alampur. 2. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor. The suit was decreed for recovery of an amount of Rs.53,250/- on 31-12-2002. Thereafter, in execution of that decree, the present Execution Petition was filed for attachment of the properties belonging to the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor has raised a plea in the Counter that he has paid substantial amount of the promissory note and only a sum of Rs.600/- is due and that also he will pay in installments. The lower Court did not accept the contention of the judgment debtor and rejected the objections and permitted the decree holder to proceed with the sale of the property. 3. The point for consideration is whether the payment pleaded by the judgment debtor is true and if so, it has to be adjusted towards decretal amount? 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the decree was an ex parte decree and he had any opportunity to contest. Evidently, there is nothing on record to show that any application was filed to set aside the ex parte decree and therefore the decree has become final. The revision petitioner relied upon the evidence of RW.2, who is said to be present at the time of the discharge of the entire amount except for a sum of Rs.600/- payable by the judgment debtor. 5. Evidently, the counter or the evidence of the RW.2 does not disclose as to when this payment was effected. The payment, if effected prior to the passing of the decree cannot be taken into consideration since the revision petitioner has not pleaded and proved before the Court during trial. Therefore, on the principles of res judicata it is not open to make such a plea. Even under Section 47 of C.P.C. also no such plea is available. Even if the amount is to be taken as payment after the decree, it has to be certified under Order 21 Rule 2 of C.P.C. In the present case nothing has happened as per law. Therefore, the plea of the revision petitioner that he has paid substantial amount is not believable and rightly rejected by the lower Court. The order of the lower Court does not call for any interference. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Dt.14-12-2010. DSH