setting aside the ex parte decree. The said delay is not intentional, but only due to the aforesaid reasons; therefore, the request of the defendant deserves consideration. She has got ample grounds for success in the above suit. Taking advantage of the ex parte decree, the plaintiff/DHr is trying to harass this defendant and is resorting to wrongful means. If the ex parte decree is not set aside, this defendant suffers great and irreparable loss. However, on 11.06.2013, the trial Court had dismissed the application filed for condonation of delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. Therefore, the defendant had filed C.R.P.No.2857 of 2016 before this Court. During the pendency of the revision, the DHr had filed the above EP and sought attachment of the salary of the JDr only to make a wrongful gain for himself and cause wrongful loss to the JDr and harass her. The executing Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff is a resident of Bhadrachalam Town, which is a schedule agency area, and therefore, the suit ought to have been filed in the Court of the Special Assistant Agent-cum-Mobile Court and not before a Civil Court and that the suit promissory note is fabricated and that the cause of action is invented and that the cause of action is vague without mentioning the house number. Further, the defendant is working as a Senior Assistant in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Indira Sagar Project, Kalyanamandapam Road, Bhadrachalam, which is a prestigious project of the State Government. The said place is situated at a distance of 400 KMs from Warangal District. The plaintiff has chosen that distant place for instituting the suit to harass the defendant and obtain a decree without contest. The executing Court ought to have seen that the trial Court’s order dismissing the petition for condonation of delay by not giving an opportunity to contest the suit resulted in the violation of the principles of natural justice. The executing court ought to have seen that the mistake is that of the counsel of defendant and that there is no negligence on the part of the defendant and that fraud was played by the plaintiff and that therefore, the execution petition seeking attachment of salary pursuant to the ex parte decree is unsustainable.
