THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P.No.979 of 2006 Date: 01.07.2010 Between: P. Ramesh … Petitioner AND Model Chit Corporation Ltd., Warangal and 7 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P. No.979 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is judgment debtor No.8 in E.P.No.76 of 2005 in O.S.No.1032 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal. He was set ex parte by the executing Court by order dated 27.09.2005. He filed E.A.No.377 of 2005 in the E.P. seeking condonation of 81 days delay in setting aside the order dated 27.09.2005. By order dated 10.02.2006, the executing Court dismissed the said application. Hence, this civil revision petition. 2. The executing Court took note of the fact that the petitioner did not disclaim knowledge of the E.P. proceedings. His only reason was that he did not have sufficient time to contact his counsel as he was out of station. This reason did not find favour with the executing Court. The executing Court stated that the petitioner was only trying to drag on the matter and gain as much time as possible. Decrying these delaying tactics, the executing Court held that no justifiable reasons had been put forth to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the said application. By order dated 23.02.2006, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the E.P. subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 1/16th of the decretal amount. As the said condition was complied with, the interim stay was extended until further orders by order dated 25.09.2006. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was only a surety and the second respondent was the principal debtor. He claims that he came to know of the execution proceedings only when his movables were subjected to attachment. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should not be deprived of an opportunity of putting forth his defence in the execution petition on purely technical grounds. The approach of the executing Court appears to be rather hidebound and hyper technical. 4. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order of the executing Court dated 10.02.2006 in E.A.No.377 of 2005 in E.P.No.76 of 2005 in O.S.No.1032 of 2001. The delay in the filing of the application to set aside the order dated 27.09.2005 passed by the executing Court, whereby he was set ex parte, is condoned. Keeping in view, the long lapse of time occasioned by the pendency of this C.R.P. and the stay order passed by this Court, the executing Court is directed to dispose of the execution petition on priority basis. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 01.07.2010 Isn