D.S.R. VARMA, J :-Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.C.C. A.M.P. No.350 of 2007 and the appellant in C.C.C.A. (SR) No.6808 of 2007-Charrninar Co-operative Urban Bank Limited and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent in both the CCC AMP No.350 of 2007 and CCCA(SR) No.6808 of 2007-State Bank of Hyderabad, only, since none appears on behalf of the second respondent-General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, and there is no representation on his behalf, despite service of notice.

2. CCCA MP No.350 of 2007 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 1189 days in filing the present appeal, while CCCA (SR) No.6808 of 2007 is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 10.11.2003, passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, decreeing the suit O.S. No.1 I of 2002, ex parte.

3. Petitioner in CCCA MP No.350 of 2007 and the appellant in CCCA (SR) No.6808 of 2007 is the first defendant, the first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the second defendant, in the suit, before the Court below.

4. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit.

5. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money against the first and second defendants.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Sri B. Krishna Murthy opened a Current Account, bearing No.448, with its Branch at King Koti and by indulging in forgery and material alteration of cheques, he had been issued various cheques by the second defendant-South Central Railways, for a total sum of Rs.66,00,000/-. The further details set forth in the plaint are not necessary to be mentioned. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of money against the first and second defendants.

7. Be that as it may, despite service of suit summons on the defendants, none appeared for the first defendant, nor there was any representation on its behalf, on the dates when the suit came up for hearing. Eventually, the first defendant was ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 10.11.2003. Subsequently, after receipt of notices in the execution petition, the first defendant came to know about the filing of the suit and also passing of ex parte decree. Therefore, the first defendant had filed an application I.A. No.1461 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity "the Act") to condone the delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity "CPC") to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 10.11.2003, which was dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the 1 first defendant had filed a revision CRP 1 No.1760 of 2005, which was also dismissed c by this Court. In view of the dismissal of CRP No.1760 of 2005, having no other alternative, the present appeal came to be g filed, however, with a delay of 1189 days. That is how the present application is before e us to condone the delay of 1189 days in filing the present appeal.

8. Admittedly, while dismissing CRP No.1760 of 2005, by order, dated 30.4.2007, a learned Single Judge of this Court observed as under :

"The trial Court passed a decree on 10.11.2003. The application to condone the delay was filed on 23.6.2004. There was a delay of 190 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. In the application, it is mentioned that after receipt of the summons in the suit, the Standing Counsel was instructed to make his appearance and defend in the suit. The Standing Counsel has not taken steps for appearing on behalf of the petitioner bank and the result of the same is the petitioner bank herein has been set ex parte on 22.7.2002 and the suit was decreed ex parte. After receipt of the E.P. notice, the respondent took immediate steps without any delay in filing the application."

9. From the above, it is obvious that the decree was passed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document