THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4766 OF 2006 DATED 15TH JULY, 2010 BETWEEN Palakurthy Venkateswarlu … Petitioner AND Potla Anantharavamma … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4766 OF 2006 O R D E R The Judgment Debtor in O.S.No.287 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Macharla, is the petitioner. The Decree Holder therein filed E.P.No.182 of 2005 before the said Court seeking to execute the decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.82,760/- by attaching the salary of the Judgment Debtor. Owing to the continued absence of the Judgment Debtor and his counsel, the Executing Court by its order dated 26.04.2006 granted a last opportunity to them subject to payment of costs of Rs.100/-. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 07.06.2006 the Executing Court, taking note of the fact that a counter had not been filed even on that date by the Judgment Debtor; that the condition of payment of costs had also not been complied with and further, both the Judgment Debtor and his counsel were called absent, directed forfeiture of the right of the Judgment Debtor to file his counter. Thereafter, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Executing Court directed attachment of the salary of the Judgment Debtor at Rs.1,500/- per month. Aggrieved thereby, the Judgment Debtor filed the present Civil Revision Petition. By order dated 02.02.2007, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.182 of 2005 in O.S.No.287 of 2004. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor sought to assail the attachment of his client’s salary on merits, the fact remains that the petitioner/Judgment Debtor was not vigilant before the Executing Court in opposing the Execution Petition. On the other hand, the docket proceedings in the E.P. clearly disclose that the Judgment Debtor and his counsel did not show any interest in the matter. Having secured a decree for recovery of the monies lawfully due to her, the Decree Holder/respondent is deprived of the benefits of the said decree owing to the tactics adopted by the Judgment Debtor to drag on the proceedings. Reliance sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the salary certificate dated 15.07.2006 issued by his client’s employer is misplaced and irrelevant at this late point of time. Further, the petitioner did not choose to produce this salary certificate before the Executing Court and stoically displayed an uncaring and oblivious attitude to the Execution Proceedings. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to challenge the Executing Court’s order on the ground that he was deprived of an opportunity. The order of the court below does not warrant any interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim stay granted on 02.02.2007 shall stand vacated. No costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 14TH JULY, 2010 PGS/VGSR