THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2986 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in the suit in O.S.No.375 of 1996 filed by the 1st respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 02-09-2005. Seeking to set aside the said ex-parte decree, the petitioner filed I.A.No.444 of 2005 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. During pendency of I.A.No.444 of 2005, the legal representatives of the decree holder-1st respondent herein filed E.P.No.2 of 2006 for execution of the Sale Deed. Seeking to grant stay of the E.P. proceedings, the petitioner herein filed E.A.No.137 of 2007 and the said application was dismissed on 06-12-2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.843 of 2008 and this Court by its order, dated 28- 02-2008, dismissed the said C.R.P. granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the court below seeking to stay further proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2006 and if I.A.No.444 of 2005 is still pending, the same shall be considered and disposed of before execution of the decree. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that ten days prior to disposal of the C.R.P., the E.P. was executed and the sale deed was executed on 18-02-2008. Pursuant to the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.843 of 2008, the petitioner-judgment debtor filed E.A.No.54 of 2008 for grant of stay in E.P.No.2 of 2006, pending disposal of I.A.No.444 of 2005 in O.S.No.375 of 1996 and also I.P.No.11 of 1996. The said application was dismissed vide order, dated 15-06-2009 by the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, against which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that I.A.No.444 of 2005 was dismissed on 16-10-2008 on the ground that I.A.No.68 of 2008, which is filed in the said I.A.No.444 of 2005 seeking impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased-1st respondent was dismissed for default on 16-10-2008. A perusal of the record goes to show that admittedly I.A.No.68 of 2008 was dismissed for default on 16-10-2008. Therefore, the petitioner wanted to file an application to set aside the said dismissal order. As there was a delay of 155 days in filing the restoration petition in I.A.No.68 of 2008, the petitioner filed I.A.No.223 of 2009 and the same is stated to be pending. Admittedly, I.A.No.68 of 2008 was dismissed for default on 16-10-2008 and the legal representatives were not brought on record in I.A.No.444 of 2005. Merely because, the legal representatives filed E.P.No.2 of 2006, it cannot be said that the petitioner has taken steps to bring the legal representatives of the decree holder in the application filed by him in I.A.No.444 of 2005. Since the application filed to bring the legal representatives itself was dismissed, consequently I.A.No.444 of 2005 was also dismissed for default on 16-10- 2008. Therefore, without impleading the legal representatives of the decree holder, the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte decree is not maintainable. Further, the E.P. was already executed on 18-02-2008 i.e., prior to disposal of earlier C.R.P. and I.A.No.68 of 2008 seeking to implead the legal representatives was already dismissed on 16-10-2008 and consequently, I.A.No.444 of 2005 was also dismissed. In view of dismissal of I.A.No.444 of 2005, the question of staying the proceedings in E.P. till the disposal of I.A.No.444 of 2005 does not arise. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial court rightly dismissed the said application and I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order, so as to call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 12-03-2010 Prv