THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.3558 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.P.No.6 of 2008 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the respondent in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, for divorce. A n ex parte decree was passed on 22-01-2009. The respondent filed I.A.No.1499 of 2010 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. The petitioner opposed the I.A. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 21-06-2011. The same is challenged in this revision. Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client married another woman on 06-05-2009. He contends that respondent engaged an Advocate in the O.P., after receiving notice; she remained ex parte, and she did not evince any interest, even after the ex parte decree was passed. Learned counsel submits that the I.A was filed with a delay of 180 days, and that the trial Court did not take into account, the subsequent developments. The petitioner filed the O.P., for divorce against his wife, the respondent herein. This was preceded by filing of M.C.No.16 of 2008 by the respondent, and O.P.No.27 of 2005 by the petitioner herein for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner is working in the Indian Army. Respondent is resident of Giddalur, and the O.P is filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. She engaged an advocate in O.P.No.6 of 2008. The respondent stated that she did not have any information about the ex parte decree and soon after coming to know about it, she filed an application to set aside the same, together with an application for condonation of delay. The trial Court condoned the delay of 180 days in filling the I.A., to set aside the ex parte decree. If at all anything, the petitioner ought to have expressed his grievance about the condonation of delay. Time and again, this Court held that the reasons that hold good for condonation of delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree would hold good for setting aside such an ex parte decree. Be that as it may, the grounds pleaded by the petitioner while resisting the I.A. are not tenable. The mere fact that he married another woman cannot be cited as a factor to defeat the rights of the respondent. No Court would encourage the termination of matrimonial relations through an ex parte decree, unless the party, who suffered the decree, persistently remained absent in the proceedings, in spite of having knowledge. It has already been mentioned that the respondent is resident of Giddalur and her advocate is said to have not informed her about the progress in the O.P. Though the respondent did not adduce any evidence, the petitioner has deposed as RW-1, and the woman, whom he is said to have married, after the ex parte decree, was examined as RW-2. The documentary evidence is, in the form of receipts, in respect of the ceremonies in the second marriage and a marriage certificate. Even if they are true, they did not have any impact upon the right of the respondent to seek the relief of setting aside of the ex parte decree. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-09-2011. KO THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.of 2011 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.125 of 1990 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, against the respondents 2 and 3, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule property, being an extent of 2 ½ cents, in Sy.No.788 of Darsi. The suit was decreed on 17-09-2003. After the decree became final, he filed E.P.No.85 of 2003. The petitioner is the daughter of the 3rd respondent. Claiming rights under the will, said to have been executed by the original owner, Potuluri Subbamma, the petitioner filed O.S.No.109 of 2008 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge against he respondents with a prayer to declare the decree dated 17-09-2003 in O.S.No.125 of 1990 as null and void and not binding upon her. It is also stated that an application filed by her to stay the operation of the decree in O.S.No.125 of 1993 was dismissed and C.M.A.No.25 of 2003 filed in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Ongole against the order in I.A. was also dismissed. The petitioner filed an execution application in E.P.No.85 of 2003 in O.S.No.125 of 2003 under Rule 9 of Order 20 C.P.C., in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, with a prayer to declare her rights, vis-à-vis the property and to record her objection. The Executing Court passed order dated 08-09-2011, rejecting the application, without numbering it. The same is challenged in this revision. Sri Nagender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a third party to a decree has every right to raise objection by filing application under Rule 58, 5\97 or 99 of Order 21 C.P.C., and the Executing Court was not justified in numbering the application. The C.P.C. provides a detailed procedure to be followed for execution of decrees. Though the dispute in the context of execution of a decree is mainly between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, there are many instances where the rights of third parties are effected on account of the execution of a decree. In such a case, the Court provides for adjudication of the rights of third parties also in the same execution proceedings. The necessity to file separate suits for this purpose is obviated. In fact, Section 47 and Rules 58 and 101 of Order 21 C.P.C., prohibit filing of separate suits for this purpose. Had the petitioner simply filed an application under Rule 97 and sought for adjudication of her rights without taking recourse to any other procedure, things wouldhave been different altogether. Even according to her own pleadings in the application, it is evident thtshe filed O.S.No.109 of in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, with a prayer to declare that the decree in O.S.No.125 of 1990 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge is not binding upon her. An application filed by her in O.S.No.109 of 2008 for stay of the execution of the decree in O.S.No.125 was dismissed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, on merits. That order in turn was affirmed by the Court of V Additional District Judge, Ongole in C.M.A.No.29 of 2009. Rule 97 or 101 are silent as to whether an application filed by a third party for determination of his rights is barred, in case separate suit for that very purpose was instituted in a different Court. Notwithstanding the silence of the Rule, on this aspect, a party who had already instituted proceedings in a superior Court cannot be permitted to repeat the same exercise in the execution proceedings. Entertaining of an application under Rule 97 in the circumstances mentioned above, would amount to scuttling further progress in the decree, which relief, two superior Courts in the hierarchy have specifically refused. If the petitioner was serious enough to pursue the remedy under Rule 97, she ought to have been mindful of the provision contained in Rule 101 against filing of a separate suit. Having filed a separate suit, in a superior forum, the petitioner cannot file an application in the E.P. One of the settled principles of law is that, a person cannot be permitted to do indirectly, what he is prohibited from doing directly. The petitoner created a necessity for slight modification of the principle to the effect that, if a party has failed to achieve something through indirect means, he cannot be permitted to pursue that very remedy in another forum, direct or otherwise. The Executing Court has taken correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. -09-2011. KO