THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.927 of 2010 Dated:- 29th June, 2010 Between: Md.Hafeenuddin and another …Petitioners AND T.Chaitanya Reddy and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.927 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in E.P.o.555 of 2009 in O.S.No.338 of 2008 dated 23.12.2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the total amount claimed by the decree holder, i.e., the first respondent herein is only Rs.1,88,785/- but whereas the Court below, without application of mind, passed orders attaching a total of Rs.2.00 lakhs i.e., Rs.1.00 lakh each pertaining to the petitioners herein who are the Judgment Debtors. It is also his submission that the petitioners herein have filed an application to set aside the decree in I.A.No.500 of 2009 and the same is pending and that there are valid grounds to allow the said application. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The first respondent herein was the plaintiff and the petitioners herein were the defendants in O.S.No.338 of 2008 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, Khammam District. The said suit was decreed on 20.11.2009. Admittedly, it was an ex parte decree. Then the first respondent herein filed E.P.No.555 of 2009 in which the impugned orders have been passed. It is also submitted that the first respondent herein / plaintiff has earlier filed E.P.No.342 of 2009 for attachment of movables and the movables were attached. Questioning the same, the petitioner herein filed C.R.P.No.7181 of 2009 and that there was interim suspension of the order of attachment of movables and that the decree-holder did not appear in the said revision and that subsequently, the decree-holder – first respondent herein had withdrawn E.P.No.342 of 2009 and filed the present Execution Petition to attach the amounts of the Judgment Debtors lying with the garnishee. His main submission is that soon after the petitioners were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed, the petitioners filed I.A.No.500 of 2009 praying to set aside the ex parte decree. 4. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that in pursuance of the impugned order, the garnishee has already deposited the amounts to the credit of E.P.No.555 of 2009 and, therefore, the same has become a part of the decreetal amount and the petitioners herein who are the Judgment Debtors cannot be permitted to withdraw the said amount. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on Podugu Venkata Rao Vs. Gandham Mahalakshmi[1]. In that case, it was held that once the amount has been deposited, the deposit accrued to the decree-holder and cannot be withdrawn by the Judgment Debtor. 5. Be that as it is, admittedly, an ex parte decree was passed on 20.11.2009. The petitioners herein seem to have filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree in I.A.No.500 of 2009. When an application filed by the defendants / Judgment Debtors to set aside the ex parte decree is pending, in all fairness, such application should be disposed of as early as possible. Pending such an application if the ex parte decree is executed, the defendants will be put to irreparable loss. 6. Since the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the amounts have already been credited to the account of Execution Petition, I am inclined to pass order as follows: 7. There shall be a direction to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, Khammam District not to disburse the amounts to the plaintiff / decree-holder till the application filed by the petitioner herein / defendant in the suit to set aside the ex parte decree in I.A.No.500 of 2003 is disposed of. 8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR June 29, 2010 Bvv [1] 196 ALT (2) 24