MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 6-9-1993 in I. A. No. 228 of 1993 in O. S. No. 65 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pitha-puram.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the defendants in the suit O. S. No. 65 of 1992. They filed an application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed by the Court below on 17-11-1992. Along with the said application they also filed I. A. No. 228 of 1993 seeking to condone the delay of 88 days in filing the application under 0. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners in the application that O. S. no. 65 of 1992 filed by the respondent was transferred by the District Court invoking the general power of transfer and withdrawal vested under S. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from Peddapuram Sub-Court-to Pithapuram Sub-Court on administrative grounds. Pursuant to the order of the District Court transferring O. S. No. 65 of 1992 from Peddapuram Sub-Court to Pithapuram Sub-Court, it is stated, the learned counsel representing the petitioners herein in the Sub-Court, Peddapuram, returned the case file to the petitioners herein informing them about the transfer of the case O. S. No. 65 of 1992 to Pithapuram Sub-Court. It is further stated that the counsel informed the petitioners herein that the date or hearing would be intimated to them by the Pithapuram Sub-Court and as such they were not aware of the fact of the case being posted in Pithapuram Sub-Court.

( 3 ) WHILE the matter stood thus, the petitioners herein came to know about the case being decided by the Pithapuram Sub-Court in the month of March, 1993, through third parties who are close to the respondent. On knowing this, the petitioners father went to Pithapuram Sub-Court on 12-3-1993 and made enquiries with the advocate. He came to know that the petitioners herein were set ex parte by the Court and an ex parte decree was passed on 17-11-1992. Since the petitioners herein were under the impression that they would be sent notices by the transferee Court, i. e. , the Pithapuram Sub-Court, they could not engage a counsel to defend their interest in the matter and contest the matter in the Pithapuram Sub-Court. It is only after knowing about the ex parte order, they engaged a counsel and immediately, an application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking to set aside the ex parte decree dated 17-11-1992. Along with the said application a petition under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 88 days was also filed: The lower Court, however, refused to accept the grounds stated in the affidavit for condoning the delay and dismissed the application holding that no justifying grounds have been stated in the application filed for condonation of delay. Accordingly, I. A. No. 228 of 1993 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed.

( 4 ) MR. N. V. Ranganadham, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein justified the action of the lower Court in dismissing the application filed under S. 5 of the Limitation Act by contending that R. 63 of the Civil Rules of Practice makes it obligatory on the part of the transferor Court, i. e. , the Sub-Court, Peddapuram, in the present case, to issue notices to the counsel or the parties intimating the date of their appearance before the transferee Court. It is argued that in the instant case the transferor Court has rightly issued notice to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein, who are defendants in the suit, intimating the date of their appearance before the Pitha-puram Sub-Court, the transferee Court. Therefore, it is contended, that when once the parties have knowledge as to the posting of the case, in terms of R. 63 of the Civil Rules of Practice, it is not open to the parties to take a stand that they had no knowledge as to the posting of the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document