IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4046 of 2010 BETWEEN Dondeti Someswara Prasad. ... PETITIONER AND Eri. Vijaya Kumari. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. CH. JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANRAYANA The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision arises out of the order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet in E.A.No.45 of 2010 in E.P.No.41 of 2010 in O.S.No.131 of 2009. The said application was filed by the defendant in the suit, the respondent herein, seeking stay of the execution proceedings instituted against her. By the order dated 30.07.2010, the executing Court allowed the application. 2. Admittedly, the defendant in the suit suffered an ex parte decree on 29.12.2009. She however claimed that she was unaware of the same till she received the salary attachment order issued by the executing Court. She accordingly filed the subject application seeking stay of further proceedings in the execution petition. The plaintiff in the suit, the petitioner herein, contested the application, but was unsuccessful. 3. The order passed by the executing Court reflects that the defendant, having entered her appearance in the suit by engaging an advocate, failed to file her written statement in time and she was set ex parte. Thereafter, an ex parte decree was also passed against her which led to the filing of the executing petition in E.P.No.41 of 2010. It was only after the salary attachment order was passed on 10.04.2010 that the defendant came forward with the subject application. It is an admitted fact that she also filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her and that the same is pending consideration before the trial Court. 4. Seized of these facts, the executing Court was of the opinion that the defendant was entitled to an opportunity to prove her case as the decree was passed ex parte and accordingly stayed the salary attachment order passed against her until further orders. 5. Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, contends that the executing Court ought not to have shown indulgence to the defendant in the light of the admitted fact that there was negligence on her part. It is however contended by Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, that as his client had suffered an ex parte decree and the application to set aside the same is pending consideration, the order of salary attachment passed against her, if allowed to continue, would cause grave injustice. 6. Given the facts of the case, as there is established negligence on the part of the defendant in pursuing the litigation after engaging a counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the executing Court ought to have imposed some conditions while allowing the application filed by her to stay the proceedings in the EP. A litigant cannot be permitted to take the process of the Court for granted. Having failed to file her written statement within time and pursue the matter, the respondent/defendant cannot be permitted to enjoy the stay granted by the executing Court unconditionally. The order under revision is accordingly confirmed subject to the condition that the respondent/defendant deposits a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the credit of the suit O.S.No.131 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of failure on the part of the respondent/defendant to comply with this order the stay shall stand automatically vacated and the executing Court shall proceed with the EP. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J April 25, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. (B/o) DSK