IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1790 of 2010 Between: N.C. Narasimha Reddy & another. … Petitioners And U.M. Sreenivasulu … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Sri B. Vijaya Bhaskar The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1790 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against order dated 25.02.2010 in E.P.No.50 of 2007 in O.s.No.26 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. The petitioners are the judgment debtors. In order to execute the decree obtained by him on 10.09.2006, the respondent filed the abovementioned E.P. under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for realization of the decretal amount. In his application, the respondent specifically pleaded that the petitioners have neglected to pay the decretal amount despite having sufficient means. In support of his plea, the respondent has filed a copy of the registered sale deed dated 26.08.2008 marked as Ex.A.1 under which the property covered by it was purchased for a sum of Rs.33 lakhs. The respondent has also filed encumbrance certificate relating to the said property marked as Ex.A.2. Though petitioner No.2 was examined as RW.1, nothing is stated to discredit Exs.A1 and A2. The Court below has rightly placed reliance on those two documents and held that the said documents would conclusively prove the plea of the respondent that the petitioners have evaded payment despite having sufficient means. On 26.04.2010, this Court granted interim stay, subject to the petitioners depositing half of the decretal amount within two weeks. On the petitioners’ application, time was extended by this Court by two more weeks by order dated 18.06.2010. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients have not deposited any part of the decretal amount. This conduct of the petitioners further disentitles them to any indulgence by this Court. For the abovementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.2411 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.07.2010. ES