APHC010062272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 345/2025 Between: Vaditya Lakshmana ...PETITIONER AND Chitturi Srinivasa Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S MURALI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 345/2025 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Murali Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff/respondent is the decree holder. The decree in O.S.No.386 of 2020 was passed in his favour by the Court of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuzvid. For execution of said decree in E.P.No.100 of 2023, the order of attachment of J.Dr salary was passed. The same was also made absolute on 06.01.2025. Challenging the said order, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree dated 30.03.2022 was ex-parte decree. He further submits that the defendant has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree. He submits that written statement has also been filed along with Section 5 of Limitation Act petition to condone the delay dated 18.10.2024. 4. The application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is still pending for consideration. In view of the contents of the written statement, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree could not be passed in favour of the plaintiff/D.Hr and consequently, the same cannot be put to execution and the impugned order could not be passed. 5. The aforesaid submission deserves rejection. The simple reason is that the ex-parte decree is also good for execution. If the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and written statement have been filed along with the condone delay petition, the contents of the written statement cannot be relevant at this stage. Admittedly, Order IX Rule 13 CPC application is pending. Unless the said application is allowed and the written statement is taken on record, the contents of the written statement cannot be considered. It is only after the decree is set aside, the argument may have force for not proceeding with the execution of the decree. 6. This Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 8. If the ex-parte decree is set aside on the application of the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy as may be open under law and if so advised. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Dated: 28.03.2025 AG 125 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 345/2025 Dated: 28.03.2025 AG