Point of law: applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) rule 105 or the opposite party against whom an order is passed ex-parte under sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-rule (1) of rule 23, may apply to the Court to set aside the order and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the application was called on for hearing, the Court shall set aside the order or such terms as to costs, or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for the further hearing of the application

ORDER :

1. These two civil revision petitions are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”) challenging the orders dated 12.11.2014 passed in E.A. Nos. 263 and 264 of 2014 in E.P. No. 130 of 2007 in O.S. No. 418 of 2005 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, whereby the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 721 days in filing petition to set aside ex-parte order dated 24.04.2009 (subject matter of C.R.P. No. 4896 of 2014) and the petition filed Under Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte order dated 24.04.2009 (subject matter of C.R.P. No. 4904 of 2014), were dismissed.

2. The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor. The petitioner and the respondents in both the petitions are one and the same and the impugned order passed by the Executing Court in E.A. No. 264 of 2014 is a consequential order of E.A. No. 263 of 2014. Therefore, I find that it is expedient to decide both the revisions by common order.

3. During pendency of the revision, respondent No. 3 was impleaded as party in both the revisions as per the orders in CRPMP No. 2239 of 2015 in CRP No. 4896 of 2014 and CRPMP No. 2240 of 2015 in CRP No. 4904 of 2014.

4. Affidavit filed in both the petitions is almost one and the same. Therefore, it is condign to extract the relevant portion of the affidavit for the sake of convenience and for better appreciation, it is extracted hereunder:

“D. Hr. filed the E.P. against me for recovery of the E.P. amount. In the above E.P. I filed my counter and posted the matter to 17-7-2009. My wife was suffering with severe disease. I got treatment to my wife at various hospitals in Chennai. In that avocation I could not met my advocate and I did not attend before the Hon’ble Court on 24-04-2009. The Hon’ble Court called me and set exparty. Subsequently, I got treatment to my wife at Hyderabad also. On 18-08-2010, while shifting my wife from Hyderabad to Jagarlamudi through bus, the bus was met an accident and my wife died on spot. Subsequently, my wife was cremated at Jagarlamudi. After that I informed about the case which was filed by the D. Hr. against me only, then the other J. Drs. informed me that they paid total decree amount to the D. Hr. company. I requested the J. Drs. about the receipts, which were given by the D. Hr. company towards decree amount in O.S. No. 418 of 2005. Now, my advocate advised me to file a petition to condone the delay of 721 days for contest the above E.P. I have got fair chances to succeed in the above matter and there is no wilful default or negligence on my part.”

5. Based on these allegations, the petitioner sought to condone the delay of 721 days in filing petition to set aside ex-parte order dated 24.04.2009 and to set aside the ex-parte order dated 24.04.2009.

6. Respondent No. 1-Decree holder filed counter denying the material allegations made in paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit inter-alia contending that it is the duty of the petitioner to know day to day proceedings in the Court in his particular case and the petitioner did not file any medical certificate in proof of alleged illness of his wife and demise in the road accident. The petitioner has to give explanation what made him to keep silent for 721 days. The explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay of 721 days is not acceptable under law. The reasons urged by the petitioner are not valid and there are no grounds to condone delay of 721 days. In fact, the petitioner is closely observing the day to day Execution Proceedings. The delay allegedly caused in filing the petitions is not correct, and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief and sought to dismiss the petitions.

7. To substantiate the contention of the petitioner i.e. to explain the delay in filing the petitions, in E.A. No. 263 of 2014 the petitioner himself was examined as PW-1, filed his affidavit under Order XXVIII Rule 4 of C.P.C. and the same was treated as ex