CH RAMA CHANDER RAO Vs. P MALLESHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of execution proceedings in pursuance of a money decree passed in O.S.No. 2188/1991 on the file of the Court of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) The Revision Petitioner, who is the judgment-debtor, is assailing the order, dated 19-12-2000, in E.A.No. 428/1999 in E.P. No. 275/1998 under which the Court below rejected the objections raised by him and ordered execution of the decree in O.S. No. 2188/1991. The respondent herein is the plaintiff/decreeholder. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as the Judgment-debtor and decreeholder.

(3.) The brief facts, which are not in dispute and which are relevant for the determination of the issue in question, are as follows. The decreeholder/plaintiff filed O.S.No. 2188 of 1991 seeking a decree for recovery of Rs. 10,000.00 alleged to be due from the Judgment-debtor. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 18-8-1992. Though the judgment-debtor filed I.A.No. 1045 /1992 for setting aside the ex parte decree, the same was dismissed for default on 9-6-1998. It appears that the judgment-debtor filed I.A.No. 1072/1998 seeking to set aside the order of dismissal in LA.No. 1045/1992, but the said petition was also dismissed on 27-7-1999. In the meanwhile, the decreeholder filed E.P. No. 75/1998 for execution of the decree, dated 18-8-1992, in O.S.No. 2188/1991. The judgment-debtor filed E.A.No. 428/1999 under Section 47 of C.P.C. seeking dismissal of E.P.No.275/1998 contending inter alia, that the execution petition was not maintainable, as the decree itself was inexecutable since the suit claim was barred by limitation. The decreeholder opposed the said application by filing a counter stating that the application was misconceived and nothing but an attempt to further drag on the proceedings. The Court below, on consideration of the rival contentions, by order, dated 19-12-2000, dismissed E.A. No. 428/1999.