HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3936 OF 2009 DATE:29-07-2011 BETWEEN Uppala Dhana Lakshmi …Petitioner AND Uppala Koteswaramma and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3936 OF 2009 ORDER: Judgment debtor No.2 filed this revision to revise the docket order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur, dated 6.2.2009 whereby the learned Judge over ruled the objections of the petitioner and ordered for execution of the decree in E.P.No.106 of 2007. For due execution of the ex parte decree obtained by the decree holder- second respondent herein in O.S.No.104 of 2004 the above E.P. came to be filed, in which notices were given to the judgment debtors. The petitioner herein filed a counter raising an objection that for setting aside the ex parte decree, he filed an I.A. and also E.A. in the present E.P. to stall the execution proceedings. But the petitioner has not mentioned particulars of I.A. and E.A. The executing Court by the impugned docket order observed that in the objection petition, the petitioner has not mentioned particulars about I.A. and also E.A. and even the file does not indicate pending of any E.A. and therefore, the execution proceedings cannot be stalled and accordingly allowed the E.P. directing the Field Assistant to remove the new constructions over the suit schedule property on process and the costs to be incurred by the decree holder. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the dismissal of I.A.No.645 of 2006 in O.S.No.104 of 2004, which was filed to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit, petitioner carried the matter in appeal in C.M.A.No.1 of 2010 and the same is pending on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Krishna. Admittedly, I.A.No.645 of 2006 filed for setting aside the ex parte decree has been dismissed. Therefore, in the absence of any stay obtained by the petitioner for stalling further proceedings in the suit, the executing Court has to proceed with the matter. In view of the same, no illegality is discernable with the impugned order. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application in the appeal filed by him i.e. C.M.A.No.1 of 2010 to stay the execution proceedings. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 29, 2011 Tsr.