IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2008 of 2010 Between: L. Nagabhushanam ..... PETITIONER AND Smt.Pirupuri Seetharavamma ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This revision has been filed against the order dated 10-03-2010 passed in E.P.No.112 of 2010 in O.S.No.534 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent herein filed O.S.No.534 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem alleging that the petitioner, herein, had borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 12-01- 2009 for his family needs and duly executed a promissory note but subsequently failed to pay the amount in spite of issuing a legal notice. The Process Server who went to serve the summons on the petitioner herein, made an endorsement that the petitioner herein, refused to receive the summons and therefore, he had affixed the summons to the door of the petitioner but no one come forward to certify the same. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was set ex parte on 24-02-2010. Then the petitioner has filed an application to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree. 3. In the meanwhile respondent herein filed E.P. and consequently an order of attachment, attaching the salary of the petitioner herein, was passed on 10-03-2010 and it was served on the petitioner on 15-04-2010. 4. Challenging the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 5. Whatever it may be, the facts remains that the petitioner herein filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that he never refused to receive the summons and that the summons were not affixed to his door and that an application to condone the delay of 28 days in filing such application has been pending before the lower Court. 6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable in the circumstances of the case ? 7. When an application to set aside the ex parte decree is pending and in the meanwhile if the decree is executed and the money is recovered the very purpose of filing such applications will be defeated. Now it is for the trial Court to examine whether there was deemed service of summons on the petitioner and whether it was obligatory on the part of the Process Server to take attestation of independent witnesses in support of his contention that the summons have been affixed to the door of the petitioner and decide the matter in accordance with law. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working as J.P.A. He was set ex parte. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as agreed by both the counsel the following order is passed by consent. 9. The petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such condition, the attachment order stands set aside. Meanwhile the attachment order stands suspended. 10. The lower Court may dispose of the applications filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree as early as possible. 11. Subject to the above condition, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J August 17, 2010 Pn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2008 of 2010 August 17, 2010