APHC010672242014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1196/2014 Between: Sadi Adinarayana Reddy ...PETITIONER AND Vanipenta Venkataramana ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P BHAKTHAVATSAL The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.1196 of 2014 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1196 of 2014 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, is filed, impugning the order dated 18.02.2014 in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.09 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty. 2. Heard Sri R.Prasad, learned counsel, representing Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though appearance was made for respondent, there has been no representation. 3. Perused the record. 4. O.S.No.09 of 2008 was a suit for recovery of money. The suit was decreed on 30.10.2008 with a direction to the defendant to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff/ Decree Holder. Since, the decree directions were not complied with, the Decree Holder filed E.P.No.18 of 2009 under Order 21, Rule 37 and 38 CPC praying for arrest and detention of Judgment Debtor in civil prison. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty ordered notice to the Judgment Debtor and on his appearance and receiving his counter gave due hearing to both sides and the enquiry was held 3 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.1196 of 2014 during which time the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 was recorded and for Judgment Debtor no evidence was adduced. During enquiry, the learned execution Court found that Judgment Debtor has been Head Master in M.P.P.High School, Sambepalli, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.18,652/-. From the evidence, it found that the Judgment Debtor has enough means but neglected to discharge the decree debt. The Execution Petition was allowed in the following terms: In the result, the Execution Petition is allowed with costs. However, the Judgment Debtor is hereby directed to pay entire E.P.amount to Decree Holder on or before 18.03.2014, failing which, issue a warrant of arrest against the Judgment Debtor on process. 5. Assailing that, the Judgment Debtor filed the present revision. During the pendency of this revision, by order dated 28.04.2014, the revision petitioner/ Judgment Debtor was directed to pay 50% of decretal amount. On earlier occasion, it was reported that the same was complied with. By order dated 30.06.2016, the respondent/Decree Holder was permitted to withdraw that amount. 6. The brief submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that before the execution Court, the Judgment Debtor 4 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.1196 of 2014 represented and filed a counter expressing his willingness to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the Decree Holder till discharge of the decree debt, but the execution Court erroneously refused it. 7. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is to be stated that the decree passed in the suit is the decree that was to be executed by the execution Court. The decree in the suit did not grant any instalments. In such circumstances, law does not permit the execution Court to modify and convert the decree into an instalment decree. Therefore, the refusal of the execution Court in not granting instalments as prayed by the Judgment Debtor is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. There are no merits in this revision. 8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date:22.04.2025 sj 5 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.1196 of 2014 130 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRP No. 1196 of 2014 Date: 22.04.2025 sj