APHC010375572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1861/2025 Between: 1. K. MUNI NAGA SANKAR, SON OF MUNAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT TEACHER, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 2/222, DORASANIPALLI VILLAGE PRODDUTUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PULLAGURA CHOWDAIAH, Son of Chinna Narayana Aged 47 years, Occ Business, Resident of Door No. 5/858, Shram Nagar, Proddatur Town, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toThe above-named petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order, dated 18.03.2025 in E.A. No. 93of 2024 in EP. No. 22 of 2022in O.S. No. 86 of 2021 on the file the Principal Junior Civil Judge Proddatur, Kadapa District for the following and among other IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. POTTURI VIKRAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1861/2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2025 in E.A.No.93 of 2024 in E.P.No.22 of 2022 in O.S.No.86 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District. 2. For the sake of convenience to discuss the facts the parties to be referred as it is in the revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit and the suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,35,800/- based on the promissory note dated 21.01.2019. Later, the said Suit was decreed exparte on 04.01.2022, the operative portion of the suit is extracted hereunder: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.1,35,800/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. Basing on the judgment and decree of the Court below, the respondent herein/ plaintiff in the suit preferred E.P.No.22/2022 for execution of the said ex-parte judgment and decree. While so, the petitioner herein filed 4 I.A.(SR).No.789 of 2024 & 790 of 2024 on 12.02.2024 seeking for condonation of delay of 810 days in filing the set aside petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and for setting aside the judgment and decree under order IX Rule 13 CPC respectively. Pending consideration of the said I.As., the Court below proceeded with the execution proceedings, then the petitioner was forced to file E.A.No.93/2024 praying to stay all further proceedings in E.P. till disposal of the I.As filed in O.S.No.86 of 2021 for condonation of delay and setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree under Order XI Rule 13 of CPC., but, the Court below dismissed the E.A.No.93/2024. 6. The impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed in E.A. is on two grounds i.e., E.A. is filed under Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC., is not maintainable and the petitioner did not submit any explanation as to why the ex-parte order passed in the above suit should be set aside is not substantiated by any evidence. As such, it is observed by the Court that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed and E.A.No.93 of 2024 was dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner underwent brain surgery and due to surgery there may be possibility of dementia of the petitioner regarding receiving of summons and warrants from this Court. He further submits that even though the petitioner filed I.As. for condonation of delay and set aside petition under order XI Rule 13 of CPC before the same Court, without considering the same, proceeding with the EP by dismissing the E.A is erroneous on part of the Trial Court for the reason if the EP was 5 executed the purpose of filing petitions for condonation of delay and for setting aside the ex-parte order become infructuous. 8. On perusal of record as well as orders of the Court below dated 18.03.2025, it reveals that I.As. for condonation of delay and for setting aside the decree and judgment are pending before the same Court for determination. While so, the trial Court proceeded with the EP proceedings by dismissing E.A. No.93/2024 is nothing but making the IAs filed by the petitioner as infructuous. Therefore, this Court is inclined to remand the matter for fresh consideration. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 is hereby set aside subject to the petitioner depositing 1/3rd of the decretal amount before the Trial Court to prove his bonafides. On such deposit, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No. 22 of 2022. 10. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 30.07.2025 BSP 6 139 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1861 of 2025 30.07.2025 BSP