IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.1394 of 2007 Between: Shaik Srinu … Petitioner And Annam Appa Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.1394 of 2007 ORDER: This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, passed in E.A. No.311 of 2005 in E.P. No.78 of 2005 in O.S. No.33 of 2001 on 05.01.2007. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor/defendant and the respondent herein is the decree holder/plaintiff. E.A. No.311 of 2005 was filed by the revision petitioner under Order XXI Rule 106 and Section 151 of CPC praying to set aside the ex parte order dated 04.08.2005 passed against him in E.P. No.78 of 2005 permitting the respondent herein to contest the matter and enquire about the forged signature and presence of third person before the Court below. E.A. No.311 of 2005 was dismissed vide its order dated 05.01.2007 holding that the condition was not complied with and neither the petitioner nor any representation on his behalf. Assailing the same, the present revision has been filed. This Court on 23.03.2007 while admitting the revision petition granted interim stay in CRP.MP.No.1820 of 2007 on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. On behalf of the respondent, counter affidavit has been filed, duly serving a copy of the same on the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, wherein, inter alia, submitted that though this Court granted interim stay on condition of the revision petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, within a period of four weeks, from the date of the order i.e. 23.03.2007, he failed to comply with the same and therefore, the Court below proceeded with the execution petition and the property of the revision petitioner was brought to sale and the same was sold on 21.03.2007 to third parties and the same was also delivered on 10.01.2010 and the same was recorded in E.A. No.46 of 2009 in E.P. No.78 of 2005 and the E.A. No.46 of 2009 was closed. It is also categorically mentioned that the present application has become infructuous as the decree has already been executed and the execution petition has been closed. Since the execution petition itself is closed nothing survives in the present application for adjudication. Admittedly, the respondent herein filed O.S. No.33 of 2001 against the revision petitioner seeking recovery of certain amount and that was decreed. Since the revision petitioner failed to comply with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the respondent herein filed execution petition and got executed the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel and the averments made in the counter affidavit and having no rebuttal reply to the averments of the counter, I am of the opinion that no cause of action survives in this revision and the same is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: February 24th, 2010 LSK