V DIVAKARA RAO Vs. V SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku in E.A. No.160 of 2003 in E.P. No.80 of 2002 in O.S.No.96 of 2000.

(2.) The respondent filed O.S. No.96 of 2000 against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, on the strength of a promissory note, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku. The said suit was decreed ex pane on 25.4,2001. Thereafter, he initiated execution proceedings by filing E.P.No.80 of 2002. The petitioners received notices in the E.P. According to them, they were not aware of the suit, passing of the ex parte decree therein or filing of E.P. till then. The petitioners state that they filed an application under Order DC, Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree and since there was delay of about 600 days in filing the petition, they filed LA. under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. While the said application was pending, the salaries of all the three petitioners were attached through orders dated 3.4.2003. Thereupon, the petitioners filed E.A.No.160 of 2003 to stay further proceedings in the execution petition in view of the pendency of the applications under Order DC, Rule 13 C.P.C. and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Trial Court dismissed the same through the order under revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the application under Order DC, Rule 13 C.P.C. together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is pending, the Trial Court ought to have stayed the proceedings in the execution petition. He contends that the petitioners were not at all parties to promissory note and the ex parte decree cannot be maintained against them.