IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4899 of 2009 Between: Chelikani Peda Ranga Rao, S/o. Late Chinna Rao, Hindu, Aged about 70 yrs, R/o. Door No.147-8, Poolbagh, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. … Petitioner And Sri Ravu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Jagannadha Rao, Hindu, Aged about 52 yrs, R/o. Jangala Street, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Radhakrishna This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4899 of 2009 ORDER:- This civil revision petition is filed against order dated 17.08.2009 in E.P.No.230 of 2008 in O.S.No.281 of 2007. Heard Sri M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.281 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent – plaintiff on 22.01.2008. A perusal of the decree shows that the petitioner remained absent and therefore he was set ex parte before the decree was passed. In pursuance of the said decree, the respondent filed E.P.No.230 of 2008 for execution of the registered sale deed in his favour. In the said E.P., the petitioner filed a counter affidavit on 04.03.2009, wherein he has taken the plea that he has not received any notice in the suit and therefore the ex parte decree was not valid and binding on him. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by the order impugned in this revision petition, allowed the E.P. by rejecting the objections of the petitioner. In my considered view, the learned Junior Civil Judge has not committed any error in allowing the execution petition because as long as the ex parte decree continues to be in force, the respondent is entitled to seek its execution. The petitioner should have been vigilant in filing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree as soon as he came to know about the said decree. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that after disposal of the E.P. by the lower Court, his client filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree along with another application for condonation of delay and that the said applications are pending. While declining to interfere with the order passed by the Court below, I, however, direct it to dispose of the applications filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.6722 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.11.2009 ES