APHC010668522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3761/2025 Between: Depuru Venkataramana and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Chitikela Madhusudhana Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.NANI BABU ROBBA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: RNT, J CRP No.3761 of 2025 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3761 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Kotha Manikanteswararao, learned counsel, representing Sri Robba Nani Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the Judgment Debtors No.1 & 2. The plaintiff is the decree holder. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No. 263 of 2014. The same was decreed on 30.04.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decree was ex parte decree and for setting aside the same, the petitioners filed application in GR No.1455 of 2019 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and another application in GR No.1452 of 2019 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, which are pending before the trial Court at the stage of GR. 3. For execution of the decree, the decree holder filed E.P.No.165 of 2015, in which an order was passed on 25.07.2025 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam attaching the salary of the judgment debtor No.1 to the extent of Rs.13,61,864/- in monthly installments and to remit the same in Court deposit. 4. Challenging the said Order, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 5. On a specific query made, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal has not been filed against the decree, only the aforesaid applications which are at the stage of GR were filed. He submits that during pendency of those applications, the decree cannot be executed and the RNT, J CRP No.3761 of 2025 3 attachment order could not be passed. He further submits on specific query that there is no stay on the decree from any Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission, in the absence of any interim order against the decree, I find no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of pendency of the aforesaid applications, the decree cannot be executed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken Ground No.16 of the Memo of Grounds, with respect to the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Money Lenders Regulation, 1960 and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, and referred to Ground No.16, but could not substantiate the same to this effect that the decree which stands final as on today, could not be put to execution. He has not placed any such regulation before this Court. 8. There is no jurisdictional error in passing the impugned Order. 9. I do not find any illegality in the Order impugned calling for interference by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. _______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 02.01.2026 Dsr