THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5441 of 2009 DATE: 24.6.2011 BETWEEN: Ganji Showreddy petitioner And Smt Salagala Ratna Padma Latha Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B Chinnapa Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Sri A Rajendra Babu The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5441 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein/ decree holder, filed the present revision under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 19.9.2009 in CFR No. 21503 of 2009 in EA No. of 2009 in E P No. 845 of 2008 in O S No. 822 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur dismissing an application seeking to modify the earlier order and for enhancement of deduction of Rs.1500/- to that of Rs.4376/- per month. The petitioner herein filed a suit in O S No. 822 of 2007 against the respondent herein and obtained a decree dated 9.7.2008 for a sum of Rs.88,128/- with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.54,000/- being the principal amount from the date of suit till the date of realisation and costs of Rs.7,244/-. Since the decreed amount was not paid, the petitioner initiated execution proceedings for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,01,214/- by way of attachment of the salary of the defendant/respondent and the said petition was ordered directing to deduct an amount of Rs.1500/- from the salary of respondent. It is stated that the respondent/judgment debtor is a Government servant working in Primary Health Centre, Pedapalakaluru, Guntur district and drawing a gross salary of Rs.19,610/- and net salary of Rs.14,130/-, as such the petitioner filed an application to enhance the monthly recovery from Rs.1500/- to that of Rs.4376/- in CFR No.21503 of 2009 which was dismissed by order dated 19.9.2009 without assigning any reasons. Hence the present revision. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is the specific case of the petitioner/decree holder that the respondent/judgment debtor is working as a Government servant and drawing a gross salary of Rs.19,610/- and having sufficient means and though no counter is filed by the respondent, the Court below without considering the averments made in the petition, dismissed the application by a single word order i.e., ‘rejected’. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent supported the order under revision. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. The Court below dismissed the application by a single word order. Thus, it is clear that without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner and without assigning any reasons, the Court below has dismissed the application. In the circumstances, the revision petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for afresh disposal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides. No costs. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 24.6.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5441 of 2009 DATE: 24.6.2011