THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No.926 OF 2011 ORDER: The plaintiff - decree holder is the petitioner in this Revision, which is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.78 of 2006 moved in O.S.No.56 of 2005 by the Special Assistant Agent – Cum – Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam. O.S.No.56 of 2005 is decreed ex parte on 31-01-2006. The respondents herein have moved three interlocutory applications bearing numbers I.A.Nos. 76, 77 and 78 of 2006. I.A.No.76 of 2006 is moved for setting aside the ex parte decree passed on 31-01-2006. I.A.No.77 of 2006 is moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay in filing I.A.No.76 of 2006. I.A.No.78 of 2006 is moved seeking stay of execution of all further proceedings in the E.P., moved by the petitioner for execution of the ex parte decree dated 31-01-2006. The Special Assistant Agent – Cum – Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, entertaining I.A.No.78 of 2006, instead of ordering stay of operation of the decree, passed the impugned order setting aside the ex parte decree dated 31-01-2006. It is rather unfortunate that such an order has been passed without putting the petitioner herein on notice and providing him an opportunity to contest the case. The respondents are called, but they were not present in the Court. They did not enter appearance even after service of notice. Therefore, it can be inferred that they have no objection for this Court to proceed further in the matter in their absence. While dealing with I.A.No.78 of 2006, the Court could not have granted relief prayed for in I.A.No.76 of 2006. Further, reasons are required to be assigned as to why the I.A is required or deserved to be allowed. The order dated 10-09-2009 is, therefore, set aside and all the three interlocutory applications, viz., I.A.Nos. 76, 77 and 78 of 2006 are restored to the file of the Special Assistant Agent – Cum – Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, who will deal with them in accordance with law as expeditiously as is possible. The petitioner herein has already accepted notice in the aforementioned three interlocutory applications and hence, no further notice need be given to him. The Special Assistant Agent – Cum – Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, may, now, proceed to deal with the aforementioned interlocutory applications in accordance with law and pass appropriate order thereon. The Revision is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above, however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 20th October 2011