THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos. 6061, 6062 of 2006 and 967 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Since these revisions arise out of the same execution proceedings and between the same parties, they are taken up together and are disposed of. The petitioner in these three revisions is the decree holder whereas the respondent is the judgment debtor. The brief facts are that a summary suit in O.S.No.103 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,92,070/-. The respondent filed I.A.No.804 of 2003 seeking leave of the Court below to defend the suit and the said petition was allowed subject to the condition that the respondent furnishes security for the suit claim amount on or before 04.07.2003. On 04.07.2003, the respondent filed I.A.No.1423 of 2003 seeking extension of time for furnishing security and the said petition was allowed and the time was extended up to 15.07.2003. On 15.07.2003, since the respondent failed to furnish security, the matter was adjourned and in the meantime, the respondent has preferred C.R.P.No.3149 of 2003 and the same was dismissed on 01.08.2003 as infructuous, since the suit was decreed on 28.07.2003. As against the decree, the respondent filed an appeal in C.C.C.A.No.346 of 2003 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court to which I am also one of the members, by order dated 10.11.2003, the operative portion of which reads as under: “Therefore, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by directing the appellant herein to furnish security for the 50% of the suit amount and also deposit entire suit costs within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondent herein shall be permitted to withdraw costs without furnishing any security. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. The suit is restored to the file and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh consideration. The appellant herein shall file its written statement within a period of two weeks from today. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months thereafter. Office to return the Court fee paid in this appeal to the appellant.” From the above, what all it transpires is that the respondent was directed to furnish security for the 50% of the suit amount and also to deposit entire suit costs within a period of four weeks from that day and was also directed to file the written statement and then the Court below was directed to proceed with the case. Admittedly, neither the security as directed by this Court was furnished and suit costs have been deposited nor the written statement was filed. However, the respondent appears to have filed its written statement on 09.12.2004. Since it was filed beyond the time prescribed by this Court in the above appeal, the respondent has filed an application in C.M.P.No.293 of 2005 under Section 148 C.P.C. before this Court to direct the Court below to receive the written statement. Another Division Bench of this Court did not find favour with it and dismissed the said petition as per order dated 27.07.2005. Hence, the petitioner has filed the execution petition for recovery of the decretal amount. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.A.No.2 of 2006 under Section 47 C.P.C. to dismiss the said execution petition and the same was allowed by the Court below dismissing the execution petition and directing the petitioner to return the amount which has been paid earlier. Hence, these revisions. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the only question is as to what is the effect of the orders passed in C.C.C.A.No.346 of 2003 and consequences thereof. There is no dispute in regard to the aforesaid chequered events, which had led to a decree on 28.07.2003. Admittedly, even earlier the condition of furnishing security for the suit claim imposed by the Court below while granting leave to defend the suit was not complied with. The appeal filed against the decree passed in the suit was allowed and the judgment and decree under the appeal are set-aside with certain conditions as stated supra and the same were also not complied with. From a reading of the aforesaid conditions, it is amply clear that the respondent was directed to furnish security for the 50% of the suit amount and also deposit entire suit costs within a period of four weeks from that day and to file written statement and then the Court below was directed to proceed with the case. Either of these conditions has not been complied with. Unless and until the respondent furnishes security for the 50% of the suit amount and deposits entire suit costs, it would not be entitled to file the written statement and that too within the time as directed. The Court below holding that there is no fresh decree which is executable after remand from this Court in the above CCCA dismissed the execution petition with costs and directed for repayment of the amount. The approach of the Court below is totally wrong. The Court below did not take into consideration the conditions, which have been imposed while disposing of the appeal. Either of the conditions admittedly is not complied with. Therefore, the order though does not specifically had any default clause, however, the earlier decree in the main suit in O.S.No.103 of 2002 dated 28.07.2003 revives and it becomes executable. There is no necessity to pass again a decree. In view of the same, there is no justification either to reject the execution petition or to direct any repayment. In the aforestated circumstances, the civil revision petitions are allowed. The lower Court is directed to proceed with the execution petition for recovery of the balance of amounts. There shall be no order as to costs. B.PRAKASH RAO,J Dt. 17.03.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos. 6061, 6062 of 2006 and 967 of 2011 Dated: 17-03-2011