ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants questioning the order dated 24.07.2015 in IA No. 61 of 2015 in OS No. 540 of 2013 passed by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The suit OS No. 540 of 2013 was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,96,443.78 paise with interest, costs etc. The Court ordered notice to the defendants in the suit. The summons were not served, and substituted service of summons appear to have been ordered and the defendants were set ex parte. Thereafter, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 08.11.2013.

3. The plaintiff in the suit who is the respondent herein thereafter took out execution and filed E.P. No. 537 of 2014 in Kerala. After receipt of notice in the said application, the present application was filed to condone the delay of 357 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter opposing the application. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by which the lower Court rejected the application stating that the delay of 357 days was abnormal. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed.

5. This Court has heard Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Sri Palanki Rama Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants argued that the entire procedure adopted by the lower Court is incorrect and that the Court was in a hurry to set his clients ex parte. He pointed out that even before the summons were returned, an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC was filed and the same was ordered on the very same day. Thereafter, the plaintiff was set ex parte based on the substituted service. In addition, the learned counsel pointed out that they were aware of the judgment and decree only after a receipt of the notice in the execution petition filed in Kerala. They made their appearance in that Court and thereafter filed the present the application to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment after condoning the delay of 357 days.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that as a result of the above, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. He relied upon M. Narasimha Reddy v. Begari Samuel 2002 (6) ALD 473 and the explanation to Article 123 of the Limitation Act and submitted that when substituted service is ordered under Order V Rule 20 CPC, it shall not be deemed to be service for the purpose of deciding the limitation. In addition, the learned counsel also relied upon Neerja Realtors Private Limited v. Janglu (Dead) through LRs. (2018) 2 SCC 649 and argued that substituted service cannot be routinely ordered. The Court should apply its mind to the situation and the provisions of Order V Rule 20 CPC before passing an order for substituted service. The learned counsel also submitted that the more than sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that the defendants are guilty of suppression of facts and that there is no clarity as to when they were aware of passing of the decree and judgment and the enquiries that are supposedly made in Hyderabad are not clearly established. The learned counsel also argued that every days delay should be explained. On the other hand, he submitted that even after appearing in the execution petition in Kerala, the petitioners did not take steps to file the application within time. Last but not least, the learned counsel submitted that even a written statement has not been filed till date. Therefore, it is his submission that the entire explanation given in the affidavit is not correct and that the application deserves to be rejected.

9. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that the docket orders of the proceedings that are filed are not really disputed