learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner should be allowed as per the decision in Rameshwari Devi (supra) cannot be accepted as the matter is still pending before the Civil Court. In such factual background, the decision relied on by Mr. Mohanty, as aforesaid, will have no application to the present case. In that case, there is nothing to show that any proceeding was pending before the Civil Court. In the present case, the decree under Annexure-6 in favour of opp. party No.5 stares at us. The petitioner in order to succeed has not only to get ex parte decree set aside, but also to furnish the proof that she is the adopted daughter as declared by a competent civil court as her adoption has been disputed by opp. party No.5. In such background, the said decree cannot be ignored by the authorities till the same is set aside. Further, unlike in that case, in the present case, though an enquiry was initiated under Annexure-4, however, the petitioner never participated in the same nor did she supply relevant documents. It may be noted here that when Annexure-4 was issued, the Title Suit filed by opp. party No.5 was also pending disposal. The factum of the petitioner sending explanation dated 8.2.2000 to the queries under Annexure-4 cannot be accepted as the same has been disputed by the opp. parties. The petitioner also did not take any steps to file a copy of
