O R D E R:

Aggrieved by the Order dated 15.06.2022 in E.A.No.233 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.

04. The case of the petitioner is that 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.233 of 2020 under Order 21 Rule 106 and Section 151 CPC to set aside the ex parte Order along with E.A.No.232 of 2020 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 petitions. Aggrieved by the dismissal Order dated 15.06.2022, he filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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.

06. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears, the petitioner filed E.A.No.232 and 233 of 2020 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 and under Order 21 Rule 106 and Section 151 of CPC to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.10.2019 respectively. The trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed both the applications.

07. On careful examination of the record, this Court by Order dated 18.07.2022 confirmed the findings of the trial Court in E.A.No.232 of 2020, and eventually, dismissed the C.R.P.No.1319 of 2022 filed by the petitioner. Since the C.R.P.No.1319 of 2022 which was filed seeking to condone delay of 392 days in filing petition under Order 21 Rule 106 and Section 151 of CPC was dismissed, considering the present Civil Revision Petition, which was filed questioning the findings of the trial Court in E.A.No.233 of 2020, which was filed to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.10.2019, does not arise, and therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is also liable to be dismissed. As such, there is no any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Executing Court in E.A.No.233 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 Ju