O R D E R:

Aggrieved by the Order dated 15.06.2022 in E.A.No.232 of 2020 in E.P.No. 66 of 2019 in O.S.No.323 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.

02. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material available on record.

03. The Petitioner is the Judgment Debtor/Defendant and the respondent is the Decree Holder/Plaintiff in E.P.No.66 of 2019 in O.S.No.323 of 2016.

Contentions of the petitioner:

04. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.323 of 2016 against the petitioner for recovery of the money. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, and upon perusal of the material available on record, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent on 31.03.2017. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P.No.66 of 2019 against the petitioner for recovery of decree amount by way of attachment of the salary of the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 48 of CPC. As he was unable to attend the Court on 25.10.2019, the Executing Court set him ex parte. Thereafter, he filed E.A.No.232 of 2020 in E.P.No.66 of 2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 392 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.10.2019. The Executing Court, on erroneous consideration of the facts, dismissed the said petition.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the order passed by the Executing Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Executing Court failed to see that the petitioner’s salary is already attached for an amount of Rs.12,000/- each in E.P.No.22 of 2018 in O.S.No.497 of 2015 and E.P.No.99 of 2017 in O.S.No.149 of 2017. The Executing Court ought to have followed the ingredients of the Section 60 of CPC and shall exempt from the attachment until the enquiry of a further period of 12 months. The Order of the Executing Court is totally basing on presumptions, surmises and conjectures ignoring the material on record. The Executing Court failed to see the representation of the Garnishee dated 26.12.2019 and 24.01.2020. The Executing Court ought to have considered the delay and to take into consideration the pandemic situation. Therefore, challenging the Order passed by the Executing Court, this Civil Revision is filed by the petitioner.

FINDING OF THE COURT:

06. On careful examination of the material available on record, it appears, the respondent filed O.S.No.323 of 2016 against the petitioner and obtained decree for recovery of the amount from the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P.No.66 of 2019. The contention of the petitioner is that he could not attend the Executing Court on 25.10.2019 due to non availability of the leave and thereby the Executing Court set him ex parte. Thereafter, he filed E.A.No.232 of 2020 to set aside the ex parte decree dated 25.10.2019 with a delay of 392 days. 07. As per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, sufficient cause must be shown by the petitioner in order to condone the delay. The Executing Court, on consideration of the facts in a proper perspective, rightly held that the petitioner did not show any sufficient cause for the delay of 392 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.10.2019. The Executing Court also rightly held that the petitioner did not explain in what circumstances, he could not file the petition to set aside the ex parte order within stipulated time. Therefore, there is no reason explained in the affidavit of the petitioner with regard to the said delay. As such, there is no any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Executing Court in E.A.No.232 of 2020 in E.P.No. 66 of

2019 in O.S.No.323 of 2016.

08. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, this Court is fully agreeing with the finding of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, and in our considered view, no interference is warran