IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.570 of 2008 Between: D. Venkatadri Naidu ... PETITIONER AND M/s.Divya Finance Corporation (Regd) Chittoor rep. by its Working Partner B. Pratap and another ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This is a revision by the petitioner - judgment debtor No.2 who claims that he is only a surety and for fault of the first defendant – borrower he is being proceeded against in the execution of decree obtained by the first respondent herein against the petitioner as well as the second respondent. The petitioner had opposed the decree holder’s application before the executing Court under Order 21 Rule 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure but the Court below under the impugned order, dated 28-01-2008 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittor in E.P.No.3 of 2006 in O.S.No.224 of 2002, rejected the petitioner’s case and directed his arrest. Aggrieved thereby the present revision is preferred. By the order of this Court dated 21-02-2008 while admitting the Civil Revision Petition this Court granted conditional interim stay subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in two (2) instalments. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he has complied with the said order. 2. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree itself grants usurious interest @ 36% per annum pending the suit and that was one of the grounds raised by him in the appeal preferred against the said decree before the District Court, Chittoor. He also submits that the money offered by him to the decree holder in the Execution Petition was refused by him and he is pressing for arrest warrant against the petitioner which constrained him to approach this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decree of the trial Court has succeeded in part and the interest has been scaled down. Further the learned counsel also says that part of the decreetal amount is already recovered by the decree holder, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence. 4. In view of the settled principle that executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the interest allowed under the decree, cannot be taken into consideration by the executing Court. However, as it transpires that the petitioner’s appeal has been allowed in part and the interest having been scaled down and keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner has already paid substantial amounts pending the Civil Revision Petition I deem it appropriate to grant him further time to pay the balance of the amount. 5. The Revision Petition is therefore disposed of granting two (2) months time to the petitioner from today to pay the balance amount and deposit the same to the credit of the E.P. and on such deposit the first respondent – decree holder shall be entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. 6. The first respondent – decree holder shall also be entitled to withdraw the amount already deposited by the petitioner pending the Civil Revision Petition, if it is not withdrawn already. In default of compliance of the above, the executing Court will be free to proceed with the Execution Petition and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 7. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 01, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.570 of 2008 July 01, 2010