( 1 ) THESE two revisions arise under similar circumstances.

( 2 ) THE respondent in both the revisions filed the suits in the Court of VIII junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, for declaration of title and eviction of the 1 st petitioner, in the respective c. R. Ps. The 2nd petitioner is common, and he is impleaded as a proforma party, since the tenants stated that the 2nd petitioner is their landlord. The trial of the suits commenced, and PWs. l to 5 were examined on behalf of the respondent herein. At the stage of cross-examination of PW-5, the suit underwent several adjournments. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suits, through judgment dated 18-11-2005. The petitioners tiled applications under Order 9 rule 13 C. P. C. , to set aside the said decree. Since there was delay in submission of the application, they filed a petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court dismissed the application, holding that, what were passed on 18-11-2005, are not ex parte decrees, and that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioners.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondent.

( 4 ) THE only question that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document