( 1 ) FIRST respondent filed the suit against the revision petitioner and the second respondent on the basis of a promissory note. Both revision petitioner and second respondent filed their written statements. Subsequently, the suit was decreed ex parte. So revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. with a petition to condone the delay of 96 days. By the order under revision, the trial court, relying on M. Narasimha Reddy v. Begari Samuel, 2002 (6) ALD 473 = 2002 (5) ALT 766, observed that it is not necessary for the revision petitioner to file two separate applications, one under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the other under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC because both the reliefs can be prayed for in the same petition and allowed the petition under order 9 Rule 13 CPC on some conditions. Alleging that the conditions imposed by the trial Court are onerous, the revision petitioner preferred this revision.

( 2 ) THE order under revision is unsustainable. The assumption on the part of the trial Court that in view of the ratio in m. Narasimha Reddy's case (supra), there is no need to file a separate application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for setting aside an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document