IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5068 of 2010 BETWEEN B. Venkata Subbaiah. ... PETITIONER AND Gali Venkaiah. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A. CHANDRAIAH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent: MR. V.S.R. MURTHY The Court made the following order: ORDER: This revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is filed against the order passed in EA.No...of 2010 (C.F.No.5460 of 2010) in EP.No.73 of 2008 in O.S.No.247 of 2006 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gudur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in the aforesaid suit, which is filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein, for recovery of money. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the petitioner herein carried the matter by way of first appeal being A.S.No.57 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore. Although the petitioner obtained interim orders in the first appeal for some time, the said order was not extended. In the meantime, the respondent/decree holder filed EP.No.73 of 2008 for sale of the EP schedule property to recover the decretal amount. In the aforesaid EP, though there was appearance on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor, thereafter, on the ground that there was no representation on 19.07.2010 the petitioner was set ex parte. 4. It is submitted by both the counsel that though the sale of the EP schedule property was conducted, the same was not confirmed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein filed an application in EA.No...of 2010 (C.F.No.5460 of 2010) to set aside the order dated 19.07.2010, on which the impugned order was passed stating that the judgment debtor called absent, bidder present and petition is dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present revision, the petitioner has deposited the entire decretal amount of Rs.2,95,416/- to the credit of EP.No.73 of 2008 in O.S.No.247 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, which fact is also confirmed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. As much as it is stated that the entire decretal amount is deposited, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to allow the application filed to set aside the order dated 19.07.2010 so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the execution proceedings in EP.No.73 of 2008. The impugned order dated 21.10.2010 is accordingly set aside. There shall be a direction to the trial Court to hear the application filed by the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the deposit of the entire decretal amount by the petitioner during the pendency of this revision petition. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. However, the said deposit would be subject to the orders in A.S.No.57 of 2008. Subject to the above directions, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J June 13, 2011 DSK