THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1823 OF 2011 & 1824 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), are directed against the order, dated 28.03.2011, in E.A.No.187 of 2010 in E.P.No.339 of 2009 and in E.A.No.260 of 2010 in E.P.No.377 of 2009 respectively, both in O.S.No.92 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, whereunder and whereby, the petitions filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor/defendant, under Order XXI Rule 29 and Section 151 C.P.C., to stay all further proceedings in E.P.Nos.339 of 2009 and 377 of 2009 till the disposal of I.A.No.92 of 2010 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act”), and the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree, in O.S.No.92 of 2009, were dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. The Suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for grant of mandatory injunction to remove the Window. As the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, refused to receive summons, the trial Court set him ex parte on 03.06.2009 and recorded the evidence of respondent on 11.06.2009 and on the same day, passed an ex parte decree, granting the relief as prayed for by the respondent. As the petitioner failed to implement the direction in the decree, E.P.Nos.377 of 2009 and 339 of 2009 were filed for removal of the Window through process of Court, and to issue warrant of arrest to the petitioner so as to send him to civil prison, respectively. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application, under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree, in O.S.No.92 of 2009. As there was delay in filing the said application, he also filed I.A.No.92 of 2010, under Section 5 of the Act, to condone the delay. The said applications are pending before the trial Court for consideration. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present Execution Applications to stay all further proceedings in the Execution Petitions till the disposal of I.A.No.92 of 2010 and the application filed to set aside the ex parte decree, in O.S.No.92 of 2009. 4. Since substantive rights of the petitioner are being affected, all the further proceedings in the Execution Petitions can be stayed till the disposal of I.A.No.92 of 2010 and the application filed to set aside the ex parte decree, in O.S.No.92 of 2009. 5. Whether sufficient cause is shown or not to condone the delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. has to be decided by the Court, which passed the decree. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned orders. The trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.92 of 2010 and depending on the result in the condone delay petition, the application filed to set aside the ex parte decree in O.S.No.92 of 2009 has to be adjudicated in accordance with law, after hearing both sides, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 08, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHT DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1823 OF 2011 & 1824 OF 2011 C.R.P.No.1823 of 2011: Between: Sane Srinivasulu .....PETITIONER AND Pathapari Sankar Reddy ....RESPONDENT C.R.P.No.1824 of 2011: Between: Sane Srinivasulu .....PETITIONER AND Pathapari Sankar Reddy ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1823 OF 2011 & 1824 OF 2011 July 08, 2011