L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two CRPs. , arise out of same set of facts and in the same proceedings. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed OS No. 393 of 1976 in the Court of II Additional Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of certain amount covered by mortgage, from the respondents. An ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 24-11-1976. Final decree was passed on 24-12-1980. The petitioner did not initiate execution proceedings immediately. It is stated that the respondents approached then for settlement. Ultimately, it filed E. P. No. 49 of 1990. The E. P. was dismissed for nonpayment of batta on 9-8-1991.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed E. A. (SR) no. 1960 of 1992, under Order 21, Rule 106 cpc, to set aside the order of dismissal for default. Since there was delay of 256 days in filing the application, it filed E. A. No. 59 of 1994 for condonation of delay. Through a common order dated 3-9-1996, the executing Court dismissed both the applications. CRP No. 523 of 1999 is filed against the order in E. A. (SR) No. 1960 of 1992 and CRP No. 524 of 1999 is filed against the order in E. A. No. 59 of 1994.

( 4 ) THOUGH substituted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document