THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5180 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/decree holder filed this revision petition assailing the correctness of the order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, in C.M.A.No.4 of 2008, whereby the learned Principal District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/JDR setting aside the order of rejection of petition, and remitted the matter to the lower Court for fresh disposal as per law. The petitioner herein is an auction purchaser. He purchased the E.P. schedule property and the same was confirmed and the possession of the property was also delivered to him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A.No.692 of 2006 to break open the locks of the property and E.A.No.693 of 2006 to render necessary police aid. The said applications were allowed after giving opportunity to the third respondent herein being heard. Thereafter, the third respondent filed E.A.SR.No.2860 of 2007 for condoning the delay of 604 days in filing the application for setting aside the order dated 23.06.2005 in E.A.No.888 of 2001 stating that he filed E.A. to set aside the sale in E.P., in which an ex parte order was passed on 23.06.2005. Therefore, she filed the above E.A.SR to condone the delay of 604 days in filing the application for setting aside the default order. On dismissal of the condone delay petition, she filed the present C.M.A., which was allowed by the learned Principal District Jude by the impugned order. In spite of service of notice, the respondents have not chosen to put up appearance. Therefore, heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the order passed by the Executing Court rejecting the application is not made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 106 of Order XXI C.P.C., where the applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) of Rule 105 or the opposite party against whom an order is passed ex parte under sub-rule (3) of that Rule or under sub-rule (1) of Rule 23, may apply to the Court to set aside the order, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non- appearance when the application was called on for hearing, the Court shall set aside the order on such terms. Therefore, the lower Court can set aside the order on such terms in exercise of sub-rule (1) of Rule 106 of Order XXI and that stage will come only on allowing the E.A.SR and on dismissal of the same only revision lies to this Court. Since the application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application under Order XXI Rule 106 (1) seeking to set aside the ex parte order made under Rule 105, the same will not be an appealable order under sub-rule (ja) of Order XLIII. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the lower Court to decide whether such an appeal is maintainable or not. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 9th April, 2010 Js.