IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2980 of 2011 Between: Bobba Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And Anne Venkateswara Rao … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2980 of 2011 O R D E R: - Petitioner/decree holder filed the E.P. for recovery of the costs awarded to him in the suit. When the E.P. is coming up for orders, he filed E.A.Nos.180 and 181 of 2011 to reopen the execution petition and to recall R.W.1/Judgment debtor for the purpose of further cross- examination. Both the E.As were dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of E.A.No.181 of 2011, the present revision is filed. According to the petitioner, the respondent/judgment debtor filed R.C.C.No.65 of 2006 for deposit of the rents to the credit of the R.C.C., in which the respondent filed a cheque petition for withdrawing the rents deposited by him in the said R.C.C. and the same was produced by him during the course of his cross-examination to plead that there was a settlement between him and the petitioner and pursuant to the same, he has withdrawn the amount deposited by him and, therefore, he need not pay costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the amount deposited has been withdrawn by the respondent/judgment debtor without the knowledge of the petitioner, the said amount is payable to the petitioner; that there was no compromise as alleged by the respondent and, therefore, the petitioner should be permitted to cross-examine the respondent on that aspect. It is not in dispute that during the course of cross-examination of the respondent/judgment debtor on 08.03.2011, he produced certified copy of the cheque petition and he was cross-examined. Therefore, the plea of further cross-examination of the respondent on the material fact that the respondent withdrawn the amount without the knowledge of the petitioner is belied and accordingly, the executing court dismissed the EA. Admittedly, the E.P. is filed for recovery of the costs. It is for the respondent to establish the fact that there was a compromise between the petitioner and the respondent and pursuant to the compromise he was permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited by him and there is no need for him to pay the said costs. The respondent has filed a cheque petition in respect of the settlement between him and the petitioner and he was cross-examined on the said aspect by the petitioner at length. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said document came to his knowledge only after cross-examination of the respondent. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the trial court, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 05-08-2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2980 of 2011 Dt: 05-08-2011 lmv