THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.796 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.S.No.869 of 2001 in the Court of Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the appellants, for declaration of title in respect of, and recovery of possession of; the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed, on 26.04.2007. After the decree became final, the respondent filed E.P.No.7 of 2008, for execution of the decree. On receiving the notice in the E.P., the appellants entered appearance. On the ground that no counter was filed, the Executing Court passed an order, dated 19.11.2008, setting the appellants ex parte. The appellants filed E.A.No.19 of 2009, under Rule 106 of Order XXI C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 19.11.2008. It was pleaded that the appellants are eking out their livelihood by doing daily wage work and they could not contact their advocate. It was also alleged that the 6th appellant fell sick and they were busy in attending to her. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the E.A., through order, dated 01.06.2009. Hence, this C.M.A. Heard Sri Shaik Anwar Pasha, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the respondent. The suit was initially filed against the sole defendant, viz, Y.Devaiah. He died and his legal representatives, viz., his wife - 6th appellant, and sons - appellants 2 to 5, were brought on record. On receiving the notice in E.P.No.7 of 2008, the appellants have taken steps and engaged an advocate. In the affidavit filed in support of E.A.No.19 of 2009, it was mentioned that appellants 2 to 5 are daily wage workers and the 6th appellant, who is an old woman of about 75 years, has fallen ill. Except making a bald denial of the facts pleaded by the appellants, the respondent did not dispute the fact that the appellants are daily wage earners. They cannot be expected to devote their full attention to the litigation, at the cost of their livelihood. Since the execution of decree visits the appellants with serious consequences, they deserve to be given an opportunity. The C.M.A. is accordingly allowed, and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, E.A.No.19 of 2009 shall stand allowed. The Executing Court shall pass orders, afresh, after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:10.08.2009. GJ