MAHABOOB BASHA Vs. T PENCHALALAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners assailed the order dated 2-10-2000 in E.A. No.606 of 2000 in E.P. No.81 of 2000 passed by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, contending that if the order is not revised, the same would result in miscarriage of justice. Notice before admission was ordered on 29-12-2000. After receiving the notice, the first respondent appeared through a Counsel. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the first respondent at the stage of admission. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is being disposed of finally.

(2.) The facts are in a narrow compass. The respondents are decreeholders in O.S. No.432 of 1998. The decree is for payment of money based on a promissory note, the execution of which appears to have been denied by the defendants. Be it noted that the petitioners herein are the legal representatives-wife and children/of Mahaboob Basha, the promissor of the suit promissory note. In E.P. No.81 of 2000 filed by the respondents herein, after receiving notice, the judgment-debtors did notappear and they were set ex parte. At that stage they appeared and undertook to fife counter to E.P. and the Executing Court set aside the ex parte order on 15-9-2000 subject to condition that they shall pay costs of Rs.15.00 to the decreeholders. The order was not complied with and therefore the matter was posted for filing of the sale papers.

(3.) At that stage, the petitioners herein filed E.A. No.606 of 2000 under Order XXI Rule 106 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for brevity). In the affidavit filed by the first petitioner on her behalf and on behalf of petitioners 2 and 3 it was inter alia alleged that they are opposing execution, that after receiving notice under Rule 54 of Civil Rules of Practice they engaged an advocate who informed them to attend the Court on 15-9-2000, that the letter addressed by the advocate did not reach them, that when the first petitioner attended advocate's office on 15-9-2000, she was informed that they were set ex parte for nonpayment of costs of Rs.15.00 and therefore, the ex parte orders be set aside. The lower Court passed the order on 2-10-2000 as under: Perused affidavit petition. As per docket order in E.P. No.81 /2000 dated 15-9-2000 as the petitioner herein did not pay costs and remained ex parte. Now in this petition no satisfactory explanation is offered by the petitioner. Plaintiff could take permission of any one of the petitioner to appear before the Court in the above E.P. on the date of hearing. Hence, in the circumstances there are no bona fides or reasonable grounds to allow this petition. Hence in the circumstances this petition is dismissed.