Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 10.8.2011 passed in E.P.No.760 of 2011 in O.S.No.302 of 2009 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and to allow this petition. 2. The revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor No.1. The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S.302 of 2009 against the revision petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 for defamation and praying for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as damages with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The suit was decreed as prayed for. After multiple proceedings, the decree holder, the first respondent herein filed E.P.No.760 of 2011 praying for attachment of salary of the first defendant/Judgment Debtor No.1 to realise of the decree amount. In that E.P., the court below passed the following order on 10.8.2011:- “TAMIL” 3. According to the revision petitioner, the decree is an ex parte decree and he has filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which came to be dismissed on 4.10.2010. As against the same he filed an appeal and that appeal could not be numbered due to mistake in the cause title of the decree. The revision petitioner now states that the appeal has been numbered as C.M.A.No.220 of 2011 and is pending before the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. He, therefore, pleaded that the revision petitioner should be given opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 4. Heard Mr.R.S.Mohan, learned counsel for the first respondent/decree holder who states that the conduct of the revision petitioner clearly reveals that he intends to prolong the proceedings and to avoid decree. The application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree has not been properly pursued. However, he contended that in the event of this Court giving the revision petitioner liberty to pursue the appeal, suitable direction may be issued to the revision petitioner to deposit some amount into court based on the decree already obtained by the first respondent/decree holder so as to safeguard plaintiffs interest. 5. However, he contended that in the event of this Court giving the revision petitioner liberty to pursue the appeal, suitable direction may be issued to the revision petitioner to deposit some amount into court based on the decree already obtained by the first respondent/decree holder so as to safeguard plaintiffs interest. 5. Considering the above plea of the respondent and taking note of the pendency of the appeal and without going further into the issue, the order of attachment dated 10.8.2011 passed in E.P.No.760 of 2011 in O.S.No.302 of 2009 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is set aside on condition the revision petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 16.12.2011 in the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to the credit of the above E.P. The failure to comply with the direction as above, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed automatically. The revision petitioner undertakes to prosecute the matter without any further delay before the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The First Additional Judge, City Civil Court is directed to dispose of the C.M.A.No.220 of 2011 expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- by the revision petitioner as above. The revision petitioner is directed to file proof of deposit before the first appellate court. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.