IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI i FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1086 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 15/02/2025 passed in E.P.NO.51/2025 in O.S.NO.1259/2022, on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, Krishna District Between: ■1,.. Chatragadda Sudhakar, Age 55yrs S/p Late Babu rao. Physical Educational Teacher in ZP High School, Adavinekkalam, Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District, R/o D.No.36-9/1-8/3, NehVu Nagar, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada. ,1 ft- r - ■ i • ...Petitioner AND 1. Bolisetty Srinivasa Gupta, Age .55yrs, S/o Late Dasaradhi, Business R/o D.N0.61-8/1-7A, Police, Colony, Koti Nagar, Krishna Lanka Vijayawada. 2. The Head Master, Z.P.H.School, Adavinekkalam, Agiripalli Mandal Krishna District. ^ , 4 ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the.,Certified Copy of the order/decree dated 15/02/2025, passed in E.P.NO.51/2025 IN O.S.NO.1259/2022, the file of the in the court of 5'^ Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Vijayawada i the above C.R.P. in lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2'^’^ respondent not to deduct the decreed amount from the salary till the conclusion of appeal in A.S. No. of 2025 in I.A.No.338/2025 filed before in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Vijayawada Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ■ : ASHC010191132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1086/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Chatragadda Sudhakar, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Bolisetty Srinivasa Gupta and Others' Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.J RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following t' the honourable SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PFTiTinM NO: mnKrano.; ORDER: ■f- : Heard Sri J.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the material on record. perused \ 2. f^sspondent No. 1 the plaintiff/decree holder which was decreed by the V Additional following terms: filed O.S.No.1259 of 2022, Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in the 13. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.3,26,900/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand And Nine Hundred Only) from the defendant with .subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the dale of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. on principal amount of Rs'.'i.SO.OOO/- from the date of till the date of realization.” -m-, ■ ,,, decree 3. The petitioner is the J.Dr and respondent No.2 is the garnishee. The petitioner filed appeal along with filing the appeal, which i (Senior Division) at Vijayawada. Since the J.Dr did of the Trial Court and in the absence of an application for condonation of delay iin IS said to be pending in the Court of Civil Judge not comply with the decree any stay in the appeal, the plain.iff/D.Hr flled E.P.No.51 of 2025, in which the order for attachment of salary of the J.Dr to withhold the 1/3'" of his salary for a period of 24 months or till realization of the warrant amount was passed. 4. The detailed order dated 15.02.2025 is under challenge in this petition. s: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree of the Trial Court is unsustainable in as much as the evidence of the witness was not properly considered and appreciated. He further submits that the petitioner’s / salary for last three months havO'already been deducted as per the said order. Any illegality to the order impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition 6. could not be argued. So far as the ground raised is concerned, that may be a ground for the appeal may also not be. But certainly not for the present petition to challenge the order passed by the Execution Court. r' I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is .dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, misceflarie'ous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// lAi SECTION OFFICER To, (Jt^nior Division), Vijayawada, Krishna One CC to SRI J RAVI KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 02/05/2025 \ ORDER CRP.No.1086 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP