IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3913 OF 2010 Between : Chinnokotla Mallikarjuna Reddy ... PETITIONER A N D Tadimarri Ramakrishna Reddy …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3913 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “C.P.C”) is directed against the order and decree, dated 28.06.2010, in E.P.No.552 of 2008 in O.S.No.604 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the application, filed under Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C., to attach the salary of petitioner /Judgment debtor for realization of the decretal amount, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree; that pending adjudication of the said petition, the executing Court attached the salary of the petitioner and therefore, he prays to set aside the same. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the order impugned is in accordance with Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C. and so long as the decree is not set aside, there is no impediment in proceeding against the Judgment debtor in accordance with law for realization of decretal amount. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the same. 4. No doubt, for not filing the written statement, the ex parte decree was passed by the trial Court. It seems, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree. During the pendency of the said petition, the executing Court attached the salary of the petitioner. Mere pendency of the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., to set aside the ex paerte decree, is not a ground to stall the execution proceedings. The only question to be decided in this revision is whether the order of the executing Court is in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the salary of the petitioner attached, it has to be seen whether such attachment is in accordance with Section 60 C.P.C. It is not the case of the petitioner that the attachment of salary is contrary to Section 60 C.P.C. So long as the order is within the parameters of Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C., the question of treating the order as illegal does not arise. The only ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during pendency of the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree, the executing Court attached the salary of the petitioner. But under no circumstances it can be a ground to stall the execution proceedings. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the trial court is directed to dispose of the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., filed by the petitioner herein, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J NOVEMBER 08, 2010. YVL