HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3775 OF 2011 ORDER: This is a revision filed by the petitioner-Judgment debtor, challenging the order dated 17.6.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, in E.P.No.39 of 2010 in O.S.No.63 of 2008. Respondent is the decree holder. She filed the above suit against the petitioner herein for recovery of amount on the foot of a promissory note and obtained decree in her favour. As the petitioner failed to discharge the decree debt, she filed the above E.P. under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC for attachment of the salary of the judgment debtor to realize the E.P. amount. The Court below allowed the E.P. Hence, the present revision. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the petitioner that the decree holder is his mother-in-law and he married her daughter and there were some petty disputes between the petitioner and his wife, and the decree holder and her husband made mediation and in the mediation, she forcibly obtained a promissory note from the Judgment debtor without passing any consideration and that at the instigation of the decree holder, his wife filed divorce petition at Family Court, Ananthapur and got decree of divorce and that he filed a civil Suit in respect of the properties purchased by him in the name of his wife and therefore, the decree holder filed the present suit to knock away the properties from the petitioner and obtained exparte decree. The main grievance of the petitioner in this revision is that the decree under execution is an ex parte and he filed an application before the Court below to set aside the ex parte decree along with delay condone petition and pending such applications, the executing Court passed the order under revision. It is pertinent to note that when an application is made for execution of the decree, the Court is empowered to enforce the execution of the decree whether it is exparte or on merits. It need not deal with any question as to the pendency of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC or the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order under revision and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the applications for condoning the delay and setting aside the decree under execution may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously. If such applications are pending, the Court below is directed to dispose of the same, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana Dated:4.11.2011 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3775 OF 2011 11.11.2011 Nn