HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.998 of 2005 Judgment This C.M.A. under Order 43 Rule (1) (Ja) of C.P.C. is directed against the decree made in E.A. No.4 of 2005 in E.P. No. 60 of 2003 in O.S. No.57 of 1999, dated 29.7.2005 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the application filed under Order 21 Rule 106 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte order passed against the appellants and permit them to adduce their evidence in E.P. No. 60 of 2003 was dismissed. The appellants are the judgment debtors. The respondent is the decree holder. The respondent laid the suit in O.S No. 57 of 1999 for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P. No. 60 of 2003 for execution of the decree. Through order dated 31.8.2005, the Executing Court allowed the said E.P. Thereafter, the appellants filed E.A. No. 4 of 2005 seeking to set aside the said order. In the affidavit filed in support of the E.A., the appellants have stated that the respondent obtained the ex-parte decree by playing fraud and the appellants have got ample documentary proof to prove the same. They further pleaded that even though they have engaged a counsel and the said counsel was also continuing on record, they did not know when and why they were set ex-parte. However, they came to know about the same only when their earlier application filed on 25.3.2005 for reopening of the matter for the purpose of adducing evidence was returned to them on 27.3.2005. They re- submitted the same on 28.3.2005. On that, notice was ordered on 29.3.2005 returnable by 30.3.2005 and that application was also dismissed and they were set ex-arte. Thereafter, they filed E.A. No. 4 of 2005 seeking to set aside the said order. The Executing Court, on an elaborate consideration of the matter, dismissed the E.A. through the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. Admittedly, the decree is a money decree and after the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent, the respondent initiated execution proceedings through E.P. No. 60 of 2003 and in the said E.P., the appellants were set ex-parte. Thereafter the appellants filed E.A. No. 4 of 2005 seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree and the said application came to be dismissed through the impugned order. To test the bona fides of the appellants, this Court directed the learned counsel for the appellants to find out whether the appellants are ready to deposit half of the decretal amount. However, learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the appellants are not in a position to pay half of the decretal amount also. From the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is quite clear that the appellants are not interested in satisfying the decree, except making wild allegations of fraud etc., Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ C.V. RAMULU,J DATE: 23rd November, 2010 pnb