IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1880 OF 2007 Between: V.K.Siraj ..... PETITIONER AND M/S The Hindupur Mutual Benefit Permanent Fund Ltd., Hindupur, Rep. by its President K.Satyanarayana and others .... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1880 OF 2007 O R D E R: The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor No.2 in E.P.No.52 of 2005 in O.S.No.290 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The 1st respondent herein is the decree holder in whose favour O.S.No.290 of 1999 was decreed for recovery of a sum of Rs.40,000/- with costs and interest at 6% per annum. The decree holder/1st respondent herein filed the E.P.No.52 of 2005 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of Civil Procedure Code for arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison alleging that in spite of having sufficient means, the judgment debtor failed to pay the decretal amount. A counter affidavit was filed stating that the judgment debtor had no means to pay the decretal amount. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Court below and on appreciation of the same, a finding was recorded that the judgment debtor got sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. Accordingly, by order dated 23.01.2007 the E.P. was allowed against the judgment debtor No.2. So far as judgment debtors 1 and 3 were concerned, E.P. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor No.2 filed the present revision petition. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Court below that the judgment debtor No.2 had sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. In the circumstances, the interference by this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. This Court while directing notice by order dated 20.04.2007, granted interim stay of arrest of the revision petitioner on condition of depositing half of the decretal amount within a period of six weeks. It is not disputed before this Court that in compliance with the said order the half of the decretal amount was deposited by the revision petitioner. In the circumstances, eight weeks time is granted to the revision petitioner for depositing the balance amount in the Court below. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within the time fixed above, the 1st respondent herein/decree holder is at liberty to take the necessary further steps pursuant to the order under revision. The 1st respondent herein is also granted liberty to withdraw the amount already in deposit without furnishing any security. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 23.04.2010 Ivd