SARWAR BEE NIZAMABAD Vs. UTLA BIKSHAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise out of the same proceedings before the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy.

(2.) The respondents herein filed O.S. 61 of1994 against the petitioner for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The petitioner was served with notice but she did not respond. In view of the same, she was set ex parte and ultimately ex parte decree was passed on 11-9-1998 in the suit. Respondents also filed E.P. 34 of 2000 for execution of the decree in O.S. 61 of 1994. The decree was executed on 24-12-2000 by delivery of possession of the suit schedule property; through the Bailiff of the Court.

(3.) The petitioner came to know about thefact of the suit having been decreed ex parte and the execution of the decree only at that stage. She filed an application to set aside the orders passed in E.P. 34 of 2000. Since there was delay, she filed E.A. 502 of 2000 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The same was dismissed by the trial Court on 13-10-2000. Aggrieved thereby she filed C.R.P. 4449 of 2000. This Court dismissed the C.R.P. through orders dated 21-12-2000 taking the view that it was not permissible to file an application to set aside an order passed in execution of the suit and that Rule 13 of Order 9 has no application to execution proceedings. It was, however, left open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to get the ex parte decree set aside.