HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1826 of 2008 Dated : 17.06.2010 Between : Mallempalli Rajyalaxmi & others ….. Petitioners a n d M/s.Shriram Chits Private Limited & others ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1826 of 2008 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, in E.P.No.31 of 2008 in O.S.No.24 of 2003 in pursuance of which warrants of attachment of movable properties were issued against the judgment debtors. The learned counsel for both parties are heard. O.S.No.24 of 2003 was filed by the first respondent herein against the revision petitioners and three others for recovery of money due under a chit transaction and the suit was decreed for Rs.49,500/- with future interest jointly and severally against the defendants with proportionate costs. The judgment and decree do not appear to have been challenged and appear to have become final. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.31 of 2008 for execution of the decree by attachment of movable properties of the revision petitioners herein. The execution petition was filed within two years from the date of the decree and, therefore, without necessity of issuing any notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Executing Court obviously ordered attachment of the movable properties of the judgment debtors in pursuance of which warrants in question were issued. The revision petitioners firstly contend that the principal debtor is ready to pay the principal amount in instalments, which cannot be a valid objection against execution of the decree. Whether the principal debtor issued any cheques as contended in the grounds of revision is also not a relevant factor and if any such payments are made, steps have to be taken by the judgment debtor to have the payments recorded under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Insofar as keeping a fixed deposit receipt as security is concerned, the trial Court has observed in the judgment of the suit that the fixed deposit receipt can be encashed only by the person in whose favour it is issued after its maturity and the decree holder cannot get any benefit out of it. Any intention of the decree holder to cause humiliation to the judgment debtor by taking recourse to attachment of the movable properties cannot deprive the decree holder of the statutory right of execution of the decree, if it is otherwise available to him. The contention of the revision petitioners about the illegality of the chit itself cannot be gone into at this stage and ought to have been raised and decided in the suit. Under the circumstances, there appear no valid and tenable reasons for interfering with the impugned orders of attachment and the civil revision petition has to fail. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th June, 2010 SUR