B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE question that arises in this revision petition is whether a revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code lies or maintainable when an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short c. P. C. ) is dismissed by the Court.

( 2 ) THE question is confronted to this Court for these factual concessions. The petitioners are the defendants in O. S. No. 312 of 1991 on the file of the Principal district Munsif, Nizamabad. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioners. It was decreed ex parte on 23-9-1993. The petitioners filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C. P. C. to set aside the ex parte decree. I. A. No355 of 1994 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 179 days (according to the learned Principal District Munsif, nizamabad) by giving certain reasons in the application. The learned Munsif dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners filed this revision petition.

( 3 ) HAVING heard both the sides on the above question, this Court is considering whether a revision lies under Section 115 of C. P. C. in such a situation or whether an appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) of C. P. C. Mr. Pramod, learned Advocate appearing for the learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that since the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is dismissed regarding which no appeal lies under Order 43,rule1 (d)of C. P. C. , a revision petition lies in the present manner. Sri P. S. Murthy, learned Advocate for the Respondent contends that no revision lies and only an appeal lies.

( 4 ) THE law appears to be simple and transparent in regard to the appeals and revisions arising out of the decisions of the Courts. An application to set aside a decree passed ex parte lies under Order 9, Rule 13 of C. P. C. If such an application is disposed of,an appeal lies under Order 43,rule1 (d) of C. P. C. An application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C. P. C. to set aside an ecpartedecree should be filed within thirty days from the date of decree or where the summons or notice was not duly served when the applicant had knowledge of the decree in view of Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, however, subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. Every suit, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence, in view of Sec. 3 of limitation Act. If an application under Order 9,rule 13 C. P. C is not filed within the period of limitation as prescribed in Article 123 of the Limitation Act,it is mandatory for the Court to dismiss the petition,however, subject to Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act which includes Section 5 also. If the delay in filing the application is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, then the application under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. will be considered or entertained. If either no application is made to condone the delay or if an application filed for condoning the delay is dismissed, the application to set aside the exparte decree should be automatically dismissed by virtue of Section 3 of the Limitation Act. In that event it makes no difference at all. In other words, failure to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act tantamounts to dismissal of the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. by virtue of Section 3 of the Limitation Act. In effect an order passed under Section 5 of the Limitation act would result in an order of dismissal of the petition filed under Order 9, rule 13 C. P. C. within the strict legal sense and the mandatory consequences become appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) C. P. C. In such a situation, dismissal of the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would become redundant to think that a revi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document