THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.462 OF 2004 Dated 7th August, 2009 Between: Garikapati Koteswara Rao … Petitioner And Bhairapaneni Ranga Rao …. Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO Counsel for the respondent : None appeared The Court made the following O R D E R: The petitioner filed O.S.No.93 of 1989 in the Court of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, against the respondent for recovery of certain amounts. The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, the petitioner filed E.P.No.445 of 1996. That was dismissed on 19.01.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P.No.471 of 2001. The trial Court dismissed the same on the ground that it is not maintainable in view of dismissal of E.P.No.445 of 1996. Challenging the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice sent to the respondent was returned with endorsement that addressee is absent. In the limited context of the order, that is being passed, this Court feels that the same constitutes direct service. It is no doubt true that E.P.No.445 of 1996 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on some technical grounds. The fact, however, remained that E.P.No.471 of 2001 was filed within the period of limitation. The Executing Court has, in fact, made an observation to that effect. It is not as if the earlier E.P was dismissed on merits, in which event it should have operated as res judicata. When it was dismissed on technical grounds, the subsequent E.P cannot be held to be not maintainable. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court is directed to issue notice to the respondent in the E.P and decide the same on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated 7th August, 2009 vrn