ORDER :

1. As the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr. Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, filed suit in O.S. No.22 of 2008 for grant of specific performance of sale agreement dated 23.10.2006. The same was decreed ex parte dated 23.09.2010. The present impugned I.A.No.495 of 2012 in O.S.No.22 of 2008 and I.A.No.880 of 23012 in O.S.No.22 of 2008 were filed by the petitioner/1st defendant for setting aside the Ex pare decree passed against the petitioner/1st defendant before the III Additional District Judge (FTC), Ongole (FAC: Judge, Family Court, Ongole) (for short “the Court below”). On considering the submissions and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, both the applications were allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.

4. On perusing the proceeding sheet, this Court vide order dated 08.07.2021, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. During pendency of the CRP, the petitioner has expired, and this Court, vide order dated 16.02.2023, ordered I.A.No.1 of 2022 permitting the proposed petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased-sole petitioner to implead as petitioners No.2 to 5 in the civil revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the court below are against law, improper and illegal. The Court below erred in exercising the jurisdiction without considering the subsequent events like filing of EP, depositing of money etc and contesting the E.P without getting the ex parte set aside petition numbered and brought before the Court for consideration. He further submits that the Court below failed to consider basic grounds relevant to consider an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. He also submits that the impugned order did not advert either the statutory requirement nor the counter filed to the subject I.A. Therefore, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned orders.

6. Admittedly, after passing the Ex parte decree, the petitioner/1st defendant has filed petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. During pendency of the petition, the petitioner died. Thereafter, the defendants, who are legal heirs of the deceased-1st defendant i.e., petitioner herein were brought on record.

7. On perusing the material, it is observed that the ex parte decree was passed on 23.09.2010 and the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed by the petitioner/1st defendant on 22.10.2010 which is within limitation period and also the delay condonation petition in representing the petition filed to set aside the ex parte decree. This Court observed that, the request of the petitioner to condone the delay of 587 days in representing I.A filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the plaintiff/R1 or his counsel. The petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was also allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that court below failed to see that condonation of delay in representing the I.A. filed to set aside the ex parte decree after deposit of the amount in suit, filing of the E.P., deposit of registration charges etc., to the knowledge of the respondents, who are contesting the E.P proceedings. Without taking into consideration the relevant subsequent events, the Court below erroneously passed impugned orders and hence the same are liable to be set aside.

9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a case of