THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5056 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner Nos. 2 to 3 and another person by name, Venkata Siva Prasad, are the sons of petitioner No.1. The respondent filed O.S.No.374 of 2000 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Markapur against all the four persons for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by Venkata Siva Prasad. The petitioners on the one hand and Venkata Siva Prasad on the other engaged separate Advocates on receipt of the summons. On reporting of no instructions by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein, the trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 01.12.2003. Stating that they came to know about the ex parte decree only when a notice was received in I.P.No.40 of 1997 filed by the respondent, the petitioners pursued the remedies in two forums. They filed I.A.Nos.1729 and 1730 of 2009 before the trial Court under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act respectively. They have also filed a regular appeal in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. Since there was delay of 2360 days, they filed I.A.No.656 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners plead that they were not aware of the proceedings in the trial Court and soon after they got the information about the ex parte decree, they have initiated necessary steps. The respondent opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 16.09.2010, on two grounds, namely that the petitioners were not diligent in pursuing the remedies and that they have pursued two parallel remedies. The order passed by the lower appellate Court is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. By any standard, the delay of 2360 days is abnormal and it is only in exceptional circumstances that the delay of such a magnitude can be condoned. The petitioners state that they did not borrow any amount from the respondent, much less have executed promissory note and though they gave specific instructions to their counsel, the latter has reported no instructions. The petitioners ought to have pursued the remedies with required amount of attention and they were not supposed to leave the matter just by engaging an Advocate. Further, the petitioners cannot pursue the remedies under Order 9 on the one hand and Order 41 on the other of C.P.C. Though they can choose or elect to pursue one of the remedies, it is not open to them to pursue both of them at a time. The lower appellate Court was totally justified in rejecting the application. This Court, however, is impressed by certain developments. While issuing notice before admission, this Court granted an interim stay on condition that the petitioners shall deposit half of the decretal amount. It is stated that the amount has since been deposited. Further, it is a matter of record that the respondent has filed I.P.No.14 of 2009. If at all, his intention was to recover the amount covered by the promissory note that has materialised through the interim order passed by this Court without there being an E.P. filed by him. Further, the respondent cannot be sure about the recovery of the amount, even if the I.P. is proceeded further. The interest of the respondent can be protected by permitting him to withdraw half of the decretal amount, which is already deposited by the petitioners. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. I.A.No.656 of 2010 is allowed on condition that the respondent shall be entitled to withdraw half of the decretal amount, which is deposited by the petitioners. Since the petitioners cannot pursue parallel remedies, it is directed that I.A.Nos.1729 and 1730 of 2009 shall stand dismissed. It is made clear that if the amount has not been deposited as directed by this Court, the revision shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.08.2011 kdl