HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.4594 OF 2009 13.4.2010 Between: K.Ramachandra Reddy ..Petitioner And Chinna Kotla Reddeppa ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.4594 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner herein is the judgment debtor, who suffered a decree in O.S.No.318 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad, for a sum of Rs.40,800/-, filed by the respondent decree holder, by judgment and decree dated 4.2.2007. Thereafter, the respondent decree holder filed O.E.P.No.200 of 2007 under Order 21, Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C., stating that as per the decree he is entitled for a sum of Rs.59,470/-. According to the decree holder, the petitioner is having Ac.3.00 of wet-land and Ac.5.00 of dry-land and getting Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from his agriculture, apart from the income of Rs.50,000/- per annum from seasonal business. In spite of repeated demands, the said decretal amount was not paid and therefore the said E.P. was filed. After filing of the said E.P., counter has been filed by the petitioner judgment debtor stating that he has already paid the decretal amount vide receipt, dated 26.5.2008. The said alleged payment of the decretal amount by the judgment debtor was disbelieved by the court below and held that the petitioner is having sufficient means and in fact the petitioner also agreed in his cross-examination that the lands stated by the decree holder are the joint family properties, as such it cannot be said that the petitioner has no means to pay the decretal amount. In so far as the so- called payment of the decretal amount vide Ex.R-1 receipt dated 26.5.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that when the E.P. itself is pending, the question of payment of E.P. amount outside the court does not arise. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below has rightly disbelieved the so-called payment and also rightly believed about the means of the judgment debtor and passed the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise, to interfere with the order impugned. However, this Court while issuing notice before admission on 25.9.2009 granted interim stay subject to the condition of the petitioner deposits half of the E.P. amount within a period of three weeks. It is stated that the said conditional order was complied with and half of the decretal amount was deposited into court and the respondent decree holder also filed a cheque petition and he was permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reasonable time may be granted permitting the petitioner for payment of the remaining decretal amount in four equal monthly instalments. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection for the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil revision petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay the remaining decretal amount in four equal monthly instalments, the first instalment amount shall be paid on or before 10th June and the subsequent instalments shall be paid by 10th of every succeeding month and the last instalment shall be paid on or before 10th September, 2010. In default of payment of any one of the instalments, the order of this Court stands cancelled and it is open for the respondent decree holder to execute the impugned order. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 13.4.2010 kpr