THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2341 of 2010 ORDER: For all practical purposes, the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District has undertaken an exercise which is similar to the treatment given to a dead body. The petitioner filed O.S.No.535 of 2003 against the respondent for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note. The summons in the suit were served upon the respondent, but he did not appear. The suit was decreed ex parte on 20.11.2003. E.P.No.106 of 2004 was filed under Rules 37 and 38 of Order 21 C.P.C. Through an order, dated 16.07.2004, the executing Court directed arrest of the respondent and his confinement in civil prison. The respondent filed C.R.P.No.1600 of 2005 before this Court. An order of interim stay was granted on condition that he deposits a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The revision was ultimately disposed of on 20.04.2005 in a way upholding the order in E.P.No.106 of 2004, but granting facility to the respondent for payment of the remaining decretal amount in three equal instalments. The instalments were paid and the E.P. was closed. On coming to know that the E.P. was filed against him, the respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 236 days, he filed I.A.No.1264 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That was pending all through, while the E.P. was proceeded and C.R.P.No.1600 of 2005 came to be disposed of. After these developments have taken place, the trial Court has taken up I.A.No.1264 of 2004 and through a docket order, dated 17.03.2009, it allowed the I.A. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Sri K.Sitaram, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the decree has been executed, there was absolutely no basis or occasion for the trial Court in taking up I.A. for condonation of delay. Sri V.Nitish, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client was prevented from entering appearance in the suit for valid cause and he cannot be denied the remedy which is otherwise entitled to in law. It is rather curious and unfortunate, that the trial Court did not take note of the developments that have taken place in the suit and the E.P. The effect of condonation of delay and consequential restoration of the suit would be to ignore the decree that has already been executed. The trial Court did not even undertake any discussion, while ordering the I.A. The order passed by it reads as under: “Costs of R s.150/- paid. Memo filed. Heard. Petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.100/-. Costs of Rs.100/- paid. Memo filed. Petition is allowed.” The trial Court would have bestowed its attention to the factum of the decree having been satisfied that too under the directions of this Court, had it chosen to undertake any discussion. Further, this Court deprecated the practice of allowing the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without furnishing any reasons. Viewed from any angle, the order under revision cannot be sustained. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.06.2010. kdl