Battu Devanand, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 03.02.2022 in E.A. No. 424 of 2016 in E.P. No. 27 of 2015 in O.S. No. 302 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material available on record.

3. Petitioner is the Defendant and the Respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 302 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 302 of 2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, for specific performance of contract, and the same was decreed on 02.01.2014 by the trial Court. Basing on the said decree and judgment, the respondent filed Execution Petition No. 27 of 2015 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari. In the Execution Petition, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 424 of 2016 for stay of execution of the E.P Proceedings. The trial Court, on erroneous consideration of the facts, dismissed the said petition.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that the impugned E.A. was filed under Order 21 Rule 26 and Section 151 of CPC to stay all further proceedings till disposal of I.A. Nos. 438 and 439 of 2015, which were filed to condone delay of 398 days in filing the petition and to set aside the ex parte decree dated 02.01.2004 in O.S. No. 302 of 2012. The trial Court ought to have seen that unless the Interlocutory Applications filed in the suit are disposed of, the petitioner cannot execute the decree since the said decree is an ex parte decree as the petitioner did not receive the summons in the said suit. The trial Court failed to see that the Interlocutory Applications are pending since 2015, which is a sufficient cause shown by the petitioner to stay the EP Proceedings. Since the Executing Court and the trial Court are one and the same, unless the Interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner are disposed of, the Executing Court cannot proceed with the EP till the disposal of the said I.As. The trial Court did not assign proper reason for dismissing the said E.A. Therefore, he prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

FINDING OF THE COURT:

6. The core contention of the learned for the petitioner is that the trial Court did not send summons to the petitioner in the suit proceedings and thereby he could not participate in the proceedings and as a result, the trial Court passed ex parte decree in the suit and basing on the ex parte decree only, the respondent filed E.P Proceedings and unless the interlocutory Applications filed in the suit are disposed of, the petitioner cannot execute the decree since the said decree is an ex parte decree.

7. On 06.07.2022, this Court directed the Registrar (Judicial), to call for the report from the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, whether summons are issued to the petitioner in O.S. No. 302 of 2012 or not and if the summons are issued, it was served on the defendant or not.

8. This Court received the report from the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari, wherein it is stated that the trial Court issued summons to the petitioner through court and registered post in the suit as well as the Interlocutory application No. 1776 of 2012. The suit summons were duly served personally to the petitioner on 14.12.2012 in the presence of Kothapalli Venkata Rao and K. Bala Koteswara Rao. Notice sent through the Court was also served personally in I.A. No. 1776 of 2012. The registered post sent to the petitioner was served on 18.12.2012 personally and acknowledgment was received by the court on 20.12.2012. Therefore, summons were issued by the Court to the petitioner in O.S. No. 302 of 2012 and those summons were duly served personally on the defendant.

9. On careful perusal of the Report of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that O.S. No. 302 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, was decreed ex parte without issuing summons/without service of summons to the petitioner in the suit is wrong and contrary to the record. As such, it is clear that the petitioner in spite of service of summons in the suit, he did not participate in the suit proceedings. It appears, with an intention to drag on the proceedings, he filed several interlocutory applications in the suit and execution proceedings with false contentions.

10. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 424 of 2016 under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Section 151 of CPC to stay the proceedings of the execution in O.S. No. 302 of 2012 pending disposal of the petitions in I.A. Nos. 438 and 439 of 2015, which were filed to condone delay of 398 days in filing the petition and to set aside the ex parte decree dated 02.01.2014 in O.S. No. 302 of 2012. The trial Court rightly observed that as per Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC, the stay of the execution will be done only when a decree was transmitted for its execution from other Court or when an appeal is pending for Orders by the Appellate Authority, and therefore, the trial Court is neither Appellate Court nor the decree received. Further, in the present case, the trial Court passed decree in favour of the respondent and thereafter, the respondent filed execution petition. Therefore, the trial Court has also rightly held that the trial Court has no power to stay the proceedings in O.S. No. 302 of 2012. As such, there is no any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court.

11. 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 Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, and in our considered view, no interference is warranted.

12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed.