IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

CIVIL REVISION PETITOIN NOS.1886 AND 1900 of 2024

15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Vankudoth Ramesh

…Petitioner/defendant/Judgment debtor

and

Kanchugatla Janaiah

…Respondent/plaintiff/decree holder

COMMON ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel for

respondent. Perused the record.

2. Since these two Civil Revision Petitions are arising from an ex-parte order in a suit and the subsequent Execution Petition (EP), both the petitions are heard together and disposed

of by way of this common order.

3. The C.R.P.No.1886 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the condition imposed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet while allowing I.A.No.233 of 2021 in O.S.No.113 of 2019 filed by

the revision petitioner. The C.R.P.No.1900 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the condition imposed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet while allowing E.A.No.9 of 2023 in E.P.No.11 of 2021 in O.S.No.113 of 2019.

4. The respondent/Decree holder filed suit for recovery of money and the same was decreed ex-parte on 08.12.2020. Thereafter, E.P.No.11 of 2021 was filed and the said E.P was allowed on 07.09.2022 while the petitioner herein remained ex- parte. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/JDR filed petitions under revision i.e. I.A.No.233 of 2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of (281) days in fling petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte order dated 08.12.2020 passed against him in O.S.No.113 of 2019 and E.A.No.9 of 2022 under Order XXI Rule 106 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte order dated 07.09.2022 passed against him in E.P.No.11 of 2021 in O.S.No.113 of 2019. Both said petitions have been allowed by the learned Trial Court with a direction to the revision petitioner to deposit 50% of the decreetal amount. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred.

5. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the learned Trial Court ought to have imposed costs for condoning delay and for allowing E.A instead of directing to deposit half the decreetal amount. It is also submitted that while the suit for recovery of money is pending, the property of the revision petitioner was attached before judgment. In spite of having attachment on the property of the revision petitioner, when means was available for satisfying the decree, there was no need for the learned Trial Court to order deposit of 50% of the decreetal amount for condoning the delay and setting aside the ex-parte order in E.P.

6. During arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Trols Corporation HK Ltd. v. National Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine 263, wherein, it is as follows:

“21. In this backdrop, the order of the High Court directing a deposit of 75% of the suit claim as a condition precedent for condoning the delay and for setting aside the ex parte decree was unwarranted. The ends of justice would have been met if an order of costs was imposed on the appellant as a condition precedent for condoning the delay and for setting aside the ex parte decree. Imposing a requirement of a deposit of 75% of the suit claim is disproportionate and would have to be set aside.”

7. On the basis of above citation, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there is no precedent of deposit of 50% of the decretal amount for setting aside the ex-parte decree or condoning delay or setting aside an order passed in the E.P. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court has power to impose any kind of condition as per its discretion for setting aside the ex-parte decree or an order passed ex-parte in an E.P.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented by both the learned counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that attachment of property of the