THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.1352 and 1356 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since the subject matter of both the Civil Revision Petitions is similar, they are being disposed of by a common order. The petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same. The respondent in C.R.P.No.1356 of 2010 and the 1st respondent in C.R.P.No.1352 of 2010 is one and the same, who filed the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2009 for recovery of money basing on the alleged promissory note, and the same was decreed ex-parte on 31-03-2009. The 2nd respondent in C.R.P.No.1352 of 2010 is the garnishee of the petitioner herein. Heard both the counsel. It is stated that immediately after passing ex-parte decree, the decree holder filed E.P.No.331 of 2009 and after receiving notice in the E.P., the petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.575 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the application in I.A.No.1210 of 2009 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree, dated 31-03-2009. It is not in dispute that the application in I.A.No.575 of 2009, which was filed to condone the delay, was allowed on 25-11-2009 on payment of costs of Rs.200/- and the said order was complied with. Thereafter, I.A.No.1210 of 2009, which was filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree, was taken up and the said I.A. was dismissed on 08-12-2009 for non-payment of process. The learned Judge, after complying the order in I.A.No.575 of 2009 by paying costs on 01-12-2009, again ordered notice in I.A.No.1210 of 2009 and thereafter dismissed the said I.A. on 08-12-2009. For restoration of the said order in I.A.No.1210 of 2009, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.1268 of 2009 on 09-12-2009 and the said application was dismissed by the court below on 11-02-2010, against which, C.R.P.No.1356 of 2010 is filed. I have perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.1268 of 2009. It is stated that the petitioner could not attend the Court on 08-12- 2009, as she underwent operation and taking treatment in a hospital and as such, she was unable to meet her counsel and no notice was taken out to the respondent therein. The court below dismissed the said application holding that the petitioner has failed to produce medical certificate to show that she has undergone operation and taking treatment. I am of the opinion that the court below ought not to have dismissed the said application on the flimsy grounds. Though no medical certificate was filed, the court below ought to have liberally considered the said application, more so, when the application to condone the delay was allowed. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.1356 of 2010 is allowed and consequently, I.A.No.1268 of 2009 and the application in I.A.No.1210 of 2009, which was filed to set aside the ex-parte decree, stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Insofar as C.R.P.No.1352 of 2010 is concerned, it is only an attachment of salary and since I.A.No. 1210 of 2009 is allowed and suit is restored and liable to be decided after contest in accordance with law, and in the event the petitioner-defendant succeeds in the suit, her interest needs to be protected. Therefore, I am of the opinion that as pending restoration application, attachment was stayed even by the court below, the order passed in E.P.No.331 of 2009 attaching the salary of the petitioner-judgment debtor is liable to be set aside and it is always desirable to get decree on contest. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.1352 of 2010 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 29-07-2011 Prv