HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1272 OF 2011 . DATED 23RD JUNE, 2011 BETWEEN Kaki Govinda Rajulu …Petitioner And Kaki Savitri and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1272 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2009, wherein and whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, ordered attachment of salary of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor in E.P.No. 164 of 2009 in O.S.No. 191 of 2008. The first respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No. 191 of 2008 against the petitioner/Judgment debtor and the second respondent/second defendant for recovery of pronote debt amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and subsequent interest thereon. The petitioner/first defendant was set ex parte. The lower Court, after trail, decreed the suit on 27.01.2009 for Rs.2,25,400/- and costs of Rs.4,276/- and subsequent interest at 6% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of the suit till realization. As the judgment debtors failed to discharge the decree, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid Execution Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name is Kaki Govinda Rajulu, but not Kaki Govinda Rao and therefore the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged suit transaction. He further submits that immediately after attachment of his salary, the petitioner approached the Court below and filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, along with an application to condone the delay in filing the aforesaid application. He submits that once the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is pending, the trial Court ought to have stayed the proceedings in the execution petition till the disposal of the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to set aside the ex parte decree. Perused the case file. The case of the petitioner is that he is no way concerned with the alleged suit transaction and that he is not the person as mentioned in the cause title of the suit as well as the EP. It is to be seen that when the judgment debtor approached the Court, with the aforesaid plea, to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him, further proceedings in Execution Petition normally are to be stayed till the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC or the application under 5 of the Limitation Act is disposed of or at least for a reasonable time. Infact the similar is the view expressed by this Court in the case of V.Divakara Rao and others Vs.V.Srinivasa Rao {2004(5) ALD 626}, which reads as under: “When the judgment debtors approached the Court to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them, the propriety demands that the further proceedings in E.P. are stayed till the application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. or the one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is disposed of or at least for a reasonable time, in a given case, there may be strong reasons for not staying the execution proceedings. However, such reasons should be evident from the order passed by the Court on such applications. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. To say the least, this hardly constitutes any adjudication worth its name. The satisfaction or the absence of it of a Court, on an application filed by one of the parties, should be dealt with extensively with reference to the facts pleaded by the parties and those borne out by the record. It is only when such reasons are furnished that the appellate or revisional Court would be in a position to appreciate the same. The Executing Court did not address itself to the question as to the pendency of the application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. or the one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.” In that view of the matter, the attachment of the salary of the petitioner ordered on 14.12.2009 in E.P.No. 164 of 2009 in O.S.No. 191 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur shall remain suspended till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 CPC or the application under 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court is directed to decide the aforesaid applications filed by the petitioner in the first instance and then proceed with Execution Proceedings. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 23rd June,2011. Msnro