THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. 2415 of 2007 Dated. 01–10-2010 Between: Akula Pullaiah …Petitioner Vs. Rayala Seema Grameena Bank, Porumamilla Branch, Cuddapah District and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. 2415 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: The revision is misconceived. It is directed against the docket order dated 07-05-2007 of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, Kadapa District directing issue of a warrant of arrest of the revision petitioner – judgment debtor, with police aid. This order was passed in E.A.No. 82 of 2007 in E.P.No. 47 of 2000 in O.S.No. 316 of 1996 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for arrest and detention in civil prison of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor in execution of the decree dated 11-06-1997. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of the loan availed by the revision petitioner from the plaintiff/bank. From the sketchy material on record and the bald pleadings herein, the suit was decreed ex-parte on 11-06-1997. As the revision petitioner failed to satisfy the decree, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No. 47 of 2000 and therein E.A.No. 82 of 2007 for arrest and detention in civil prison of the judgment debtor / revision petitioner. Having suffered the decree and without taking any steps for setting aside the ex- parte decree either, the revision petitioner filed W.P.No. 10969 of 2002, impleading the respondent-bank and challenging its right to collect the loan amount from the revision petitioner. By an order dated 20-06-2002 this Court directed interim stay of recovery subject to the condition of the revision petitioner depositing Rs.4,000-00 within four weeks. As the revision petitioner failed to deposit the amount as directed above within the period stipulated, on 01-05-2007 the executing Court recorded the said fact and by the impugned order dated 07-05- 2007 directed issue of warrant of arrest of the revision petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is unable to state before this Court as to what thereafter transpired in W.P.No. 10969 of 2002, from the record of this Court it would appear that the said writ petition was dismissed on 18-02-2008. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the revision petitioner has filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 11-06-1997 in the suit with a delay of over nine and half years (9 ½ ), but is unable to state as to what happened to such application. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the order passed by Court below either on facts or in law. There are no merits. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 01-10-2010 Pvks/*