THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.1650 of 2007 Date: 20.12.2010 Between: Arasankula Jayalakshmi … Petitioner AND Godavari Gangadharam .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P. No.1650 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the second defendant. The plaintiff is the sole respondent in this revision. The plaintiff laid the suit against the first defendant for the specific performance of the agreement of sale. After the suit was laid by the plaintiff, the second defendant purchased the property from the first defendant. After due trial, the plaintiff obtained a decree for the specific performance of the agreement of sale in his favour through the judgment and decree dated 22.04.1994. The first appeal and second appeal were dismissed. The second defendant would appear to have preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. However, there is no stay in the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. 2. The plaintiff sought for the execution of the decree in the suit as well as for delivery of possession. The plaintiff/decree holder obtained sale deed in his favour executed by the execution Court. He also obtained delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property on 22.07.2006. 3. When E.P.No.28 of 2006 was laid by the decree holder for delivery of possession, the second judgment debtor/second defendant, who is the sole revision petitioner, was served with notice through refusal of the notice sent through post. Holding that service was sufficient, the execution Court proceeded with the case. The second judgment debtor later filed E.A.No.174 of 2006 to set aside the ex parte order dated 17.03.2006 against him in E.P.No.28 of 2006. Through the impugned order, the execution Court dismissed the same holding that the explanation offered by the second judgment debtor for not appearing before the execution Court is not satisfactory and is liable to be rejected. 4. The contesting judgment debtor claimed that she never had occasion to refuse the notice sought to be served upon her in E.P.No.28 of 2006 and that in fact the second judgment debtor was at Hyderabad in March 2006 when notice in E.P.No.28 of 2006 was sought to be served upon her. The execution Court demonstrated through paragraph-7 of the impugned order as to how the claim of the judgment debtor No.2 is incorrect in this regard. I agree with the contention of Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the decree holder/respondent herein that the ground assigned by the petitioner/ judgment debtor No.2 as an excuse for not appearing before the Court on 17.03.2006 is not justified. At the same time, where delivery was already effected in favour of the decree holder/respondent, I consider that it would be appropriate to accord an opportunity to the judgment debtor No.2 to put forth her claim before the execution Court. 5. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. The ex parte order in E.P.No.28 of 2006 passed against the judgment debtor No.2 is set aside. The execution Court shall accord an opportunity to the second judgment debtor to put forth her claim and pass appropriate orders. 6. As it is already an old matter, the second judgment debtor cannot go on procrastinating the case. The execution Court therefore is requested to accord one month’s time to the second judgment debtor to put forth her claim before the execution Court, after receipt of the orders and the records by the execution Court and that if the judgment debtor No.2 does not evince any interest in prosecuting the case, the execution Court shall be at liberty to dispose of E.P.No.28 of 2006 as it considers just and proper. During the pendency of E.P.No.28 of 2006, the delivery already effected shall continue. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20.12.2010 Isn