HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 803 of 2010 Date : 14-06-2010 Between: Mattapu Konda Swamy ……… Petitioner and Karumuri Venkatraju ………. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 803 of 2010 ORDER: This Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16- 11-2009 in E.P.No.66 of 2009 in O.S.No.774 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Nidadovole, West Godavari District. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.774 of 2008. He filed the suit against the petitioner herein stating that the petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from him on 18-08-2005 and subsequently failed to repay the same. The petitioner made his appearance before the Court and sought time for filing written statement and accordingly, the matter was posted to 17-01-2009. It appears that the petitioner did not attend the Court on 17-01-2009 and therefore, he was set ex parte on that day and an ex parte decree was passed on 09-02-2009 mainly on the ground of default of the petitioner to file written statement. 3. On 03-03-2009, the petitioner filed an Application in I.A.No.216 of 2009 to set aside the ex parte decree along with written statement. After giving notice to other side, the said Application was posted to 03-04-2009 for counter. The matter underwent adjournments on 07-05-2009, 10-07-2009, and 25-09-2009, 04-12-2009, 10-12-2009, 24-12-2009, 28-12-2009 and 29-12-2009. But no counter was filed by the respondent/ decree holder till 29-12-2009. Thus Though the Application to set aside the ex parte decree in I.A.No.216 of 2009 underwent several adjournments, the respondent/decree holder failed to file counter. 4. While the Application to set aside the ex parte decree was pending, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.66 of 2009 on 21- 07-2009. Since it was an ex parte decree, orders attaching the salary of the petitioner were passed on 23-07-2009. Notice to JDr (petitioner herein) was served and he filed vakalat and also an Application seeking stay of E.P. proceedings in the said E.P. and notice was duly given to the decree holder. The matter was adjourned to 16-11-2009 and on that day, the impugned order was passed. The docket order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge is not legible. However, it appears from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders were passed making the attachment absolute and closing the E.P. The Application for stay of execution proceedings was also disposed of by the following order: “Since the E.P. is closed on 16-11-2009, the E.A. is returned.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner has already filed an Application to set aside the ex parte decree in I.A.No.216 of 2009 and the same was pending, the impugned order making attachment as absolute and closing the E.P., without taking into consideration the said Application filed by the petitioner, is against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. It is also his contention that the order is not supported by any reasons and the circumstances that the petitioner has already filed an Application to set aside the ex parte decree and also an Application to stay the execution proceedings were not taken into consideration. He further submitted that the respondent/decree holder has been delaying the disposal of the Application filed to set aside the ex parte decree. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submits that admittedly the petitioner herein was set ex parte on 17-01- 2009. The ex parte decree was passed on 09-02-2009 and the E.P. was filed on 21-07-2009 seeking attachment of the salary and admittedly there was no stay granted by the Court which passed the decree and in the absence of any stay, the lower Court was justified in attaching the salary of the petitioner and making the said order absolute. It is also his submission that no Application was filed before the Court, which passed the decree, to stay the execution proceedings. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submitted that the suit and the E.P. are pending on the file of the same Court, which passed the impugned order. 8. In the light of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable? 9. Admittedly the petitioner was set ex parte on 17-01-2009 and the ex parte decree was passed on 09-02-2009. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed an Application to set aside the ex parte decree on 03-03-2009 itself and it was pending for the counter of the respondent/decree holder. It is also clear that the Respondent/decree holder did not file any counter in I.A.No.216 of 2009 till 29-12-2009. 10. As seen from the record, absolutely there is no truth in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner was not ready in I.A.No.216 of 2009. It is the respondent, who did not file counter till 29-12-2009. It is not clear as to what happened after 29-12-2009. It is most unfortunate that, the Junior Civil Judge, Nidadovole, granted more than ten adjournments for more than seven months for filing counter. When a specific period has been prescribed for filing written statement, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nidadovole, is not justified in granting unreasonable adjournments in an Interlocutory Application filed to set aside an ex parte decree. Thus it is clear that it is the respondent, who has been dragging on the disposal of the I.A. filed to set aside the ex parte decree. The above referred adjournment dates clearly indicate that it is the respondent/decree holder, who has not filed counter till 29-12-2009 in the said Application and at his instance, the said Application is pending. It may be a fact that the petitioner seems to have filed an Application in the E.P. itself for stay of the execution proceedings and he has not filed any Application in the Suit for the stay of the execution of the decree. Anyhow the docket orders make it clear that the learned Junior Civil Judge has passed a cryptic order without referring to the Applications filed by the petitioner for stay of the execution proceedings and to set aside the ex parte decree. 11. All judicial orders have to be supported by cogent reasons. Any order, which is not supported by such reasons and which does not refer to the basic facts and the real picture of the case, does not stand to scrutiny. Moreover when an E.A. to stay the proceedings is pending in the E.P, the learned Magistrate ought to have disposed of the said E.A. before disposing of the E.P. When the E.A. is pending, he is not justified in closing the E.P. 12. In the light of the above circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. The impugned order, dated 16-11-2009 closing E.P.No.66 of 2009 is set aside. The interim order attaching the salary of the petitioner stands suspended till the disposal of the Application filed to stay the execution proceedings and I.A.No.216 of 2009 filed to set aside the ex parte decree. 14. The matter is remanded to the lower Court for passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties. The petitioner shall resubmit the E.A. in E.P.No.66 of 2009 returned by the lower Court. The lower Court is also directed to dispose of I.A.No.216 of 2009 within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and then the other Application within thirty days thereafter. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 14-06-2010 YCR