( 1 ) THE defendants in O. S. No. 34 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, devarakonda, are the petitioners in this revision petition. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants in respect of the land admeasuring 0. 37 gts. comprised in sy. No. 455 of Mondikanigudem village, hamlet of Palvai village of Gurrampode mandal, Nalgonda District. The suit was decreed on 7-9-2000. The petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. As there was a delay in filing the said application, they also filed I. A. No. 148 of 2001 praying the lower Court to condone the delay of 331 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court having dismissed I. A. No. 148 of 2001, the petitioners filed the present revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( the Code ).

( 2 ) THE trial Court having regard to the pleadings as well as contentions in LA. No. 148 of 2001, dismissed the LA. holding thus: a perusal of the affidavit of the petitioners clearly indicates that the petitioners did not assign any ground for the delay in filing petition to set aside ex parte decree much less any valid or cogent ground. The petitioners also failed to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contention about the alleged settlement of the case and the alleged promise of the respondent to withdraw the suit. Therefore, this petition deserves no consideration.

( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate, Smt. Neeraja, representing Sri M. Venkatarama Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application. She would also contend that while condoning the delay the lower Court should be liberal in the matter. She placed reliance on a judgment of the supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy.

( 4 ) SRI B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposed the revision petition. He would contend that the affidavit filed before the lower Court in support of I. A. No. 148 of 2001 did not disclose sufficient cause for condoning the delay and, therefore, the lower Court was justified in dismissing the application for condoning the delay.

( 5 ) THE affidavit filed before the lower Court, indeed, does not disclose any reasons for the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 7-9-2000. It is stated in the affidavit that there was a compromise before the village elders to withdraw the suit. The same was informed to the Mandal Parishad Territorial constituency Member with a request to inform the same to the respondent s advocate. The same, however, was not informed to the respondent s Advocate and, therefore, when the case was listed on 24-8-2000 for filing written statement, they were absent and were set ex parte. It is also stated that the petitioners came to know about the ex parte decree on 30-8-2001 and immediately they took steps for filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree with an application to condone the delay.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners does not seriously dispute that the affidavit does not disclose sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the period prescribed i. e. , 30 days. She would, however, submit that as there was a settlement between the respondent and the petitioners, they did not prosecute the case properly. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the same.

( 7 ) ORDER XIX of the Code deals with affidavits and Rule 1 thereof empowers any court to order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit. Clause (1) of rule 3 of Order XIX of the Code postulates that "affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove. " When the petitioners stated in the affidavit that the respondent compromised before the village elders to withdraw the suit and settle the matter, nothing prevented

Click Here to Read the rest of this document