THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.3175 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.532 of 2005 in the Court of V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,54,000/-. The suit was decreed on 09-02-2007, by exercising power under Order XVII C.P.C. The petitioner filed I.A.No.237 of 2008 to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Since there was delay in filing the same, she filed I.A.No.235 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Both the applications are said to be pending. The respondent obtained an order of precept and filed E.P.No.32 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. In the E.P., the petitioner filed E.A.No.275 of 2010, under Rule 69 of order XXI C.P.C., with a prayer to adjourn the sale of the property by one month. The trial Court dismissed the E.A., through order dated 02- 07-2010. Hence this revision. Heard Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, who filed the caveat. The petitioner has already initiated steps for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09-02-2007. The merit or otherwise of the plea raised by the petitioner needs to be considered by the trial Court. Even while the applications are pending, the respondent initiated execution. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, by taking permission of the Executing Court, under Rule 72 of Order XXI C.P.C., the respondent himself participated in the auction held on 02-07-2010, and emerged as the highest bidder. It is also stated that the entire bid amount is deposited. The scope of the present revision is limited. It is as to whether the Executing Court was justified in not acceding to the request of the petitioner for postponement of the auction. When the execution is of o n ex parte decree and proceedings for setting aside the ex parte decree are initiated, it is a matter of course that the further proceedings are deferred. If the execution is proceeded, the whole effort of the judgment-debtor would become futile. This Court feels that further steps in E.P. deserve to be stayed, till the applications filed by the petitioner are decided, one way or the other. Hence, the revision is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. As a result, E.A.No.275 of 2010 is ordered, directing that, no further steps shall be taken in E.P.No.32 of 2007, pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, till the Court of V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, disposes of the I.A.Nos.235 and 237 of 2008. The petitioner shall extend co-operation for the disposal of those applications, and the learned V Additional senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, shall dispose of the applications within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The nature of further steps to be taken in the E.P., shall depend upon the outcome of the I.A.Nos.235 and 237 of 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-07-2010. KO