ORDER :

1. Defendants in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 25.02.2022 in I.A.No.572 of 2019 in O.S.No.390 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. Respondent, being the plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.390 of 2014 against the respondents/defendants for recovery of amount.

3. Defendants did not contest the suit and hence, they were set exparte on 01.05.2014 and eventually, decree was passed on 17.12.2014.

4. Initially, E.P.No.165 of 2016 was filed by the decree holder, wherein notice was ordered and the same was received by petitioners on 25.03.2017. Thereafter I.A.No.572 of 2019 was filed to condone the delay of 1666 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 17.12.2014.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that plaintiff is none other than husband 2nd of defendant’s sister; that in view of family disputes, plaintiff filed suit for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note; that suit promissory note is forged one; that after receipt of summons from the Court, defendants asked the plaintiff about filing of suit and placed the matter before the elders; that plaintiff and his wife, who filed separate suit O.S.No.391 of 2014, agreed to withdraw the suits and hence, they could not attend the Court; that they received notice in E.P.No.123 of 2019 and contacted the advocate and on enquiry, they came to know that petitioners/defendants were set exparte on 01.05.2014 and an exparte decree was passed on 17.12.2014; that delay in filing the petition is neither willful nor wanton; that they came to know about the exparte decree, when they received notices in execution and prayed the Court to condone the delay of 1666 days in filing the petition.

6. Counter was filed by respondent/plaintiff and while denying the averments in the affidavit, it was contended interalia that petitioners having received summons in the suit did not contest the suit and hence, they were set exparte on 01.05.2014 and exparte decree was passed on 17.12.2014; that E.P.No.165 of 2016 was filed on 31.03.2017; that notices were served on the petitioners; that E.P. was dismissed as not pressed in view of difference in schedule; that present E.P.No.123 of 2019 was filed and after receipt of summons, the present application is filed with a delay; that the delay was not properly explained and thus prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. By order dated 25.02.2022, Court below dismissed the petition. Against the said order, the above revision is filed.

8. Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Lakshmi Prameela, learned counsel representing Smt.B.Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

9. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit that suit promissory note is rank forgery and in fact, the matter was placed before the elders and the plaintiff agreed to withdraw the suit. Having believed the same, petitioners could not contest the suit. He would submit that petitioners came to know about the decree when they received notices in E.P.No.123 of 2019 for attachment and sale of immovable property. He would also submit that petitioners explained the delay by showing sufficient cause and the technicalities of the law should not prevent the Court from doing substantial justice.

10. Learned counsel for respondent supported the order of the trial Court.

11. In the light of submissions made by learned counsel on either side, the following point arose for consideration:

Whether the petitioners showed sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1666 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside exparte decree in O.S.No.390 of 2014?

12. Suit O.S.No.390 of 2014 was filed for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note. Defendants admitted regarding receipt of summons from the Court. However, contended that after receipt of summons they approached the plaintiff and placed t