THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5871 of 2011 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.393 of 2005 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur against the petitioners for the relief of declaration of their right to use the passage marked in the plaint plan, for mandatory injunction against the petitioners for removal of a brick wall at point ‘X’ and for perpetual injunction. The suit was decreed ex parte on 16.10.2006. Thereafter, the respondents filed E.P.No.28 of 2007 for execution of the decree. They pleaded that the petitioners failed to remove the brick wall and thereby, their passage is obstructed. The petitioners pleaded that they were not aware of the decree and that on coming to know that the decree has been passed, they filed an application under Rule 13 of Order IX C.P.C. together with an application to condone the delay. The trial Court allowed the E.P. through order, dated 23.08.2010. Hence, this civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The decree obtained by the respondents is the one for declaration of rights, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction. Though the decree is ex parte in nature, it is not a case where it was passed without proper service of summons or without any information to the petitioners. The record discloses that on receiving summons, the petitioners entered appearance and filed a written statement. It was only at a later stage, that they were set ex parte. It may be true that the petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. In the normal course, when such an application is pending, the executing Court would not proceed with the matter. However, the facts of the case indicate that the petitioners were trying to prevent the respondents from reaping the benefits of the decree, by resorting to various tactics. The same cannot be permitted. Further, no hardship would be caused to them, in case the obstruction in the passage is removed, without prejudice to their right to contest the matter. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. It is however directed that in case, the petitioners remove the wall or permit the respondents to remove the wall, the trial Court shall consider the feasibility of setting aside the ex parte decree. The removal of the wall shall however be subject to the outcome of the suit, in case the ex parte decree is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 23.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5871 of 2011 Date: 23.12.2011 JSU