The main legal point established is that even though the reasons for delay in filing a set aside ex parte order petition may not be satisfactory, if substantial rights are involved, the Court may grant an opportunity to contest the suit with conditions/directions.

JUDGMENT

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Order dtd. 22/3/2022 passed in I.A.No.206 of 2022 in O.S.No.39 of 2006 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, whereby petition filed by the petitioner/ 1st defendant under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside ex parte order dtd. 13/12/2006 passed against him, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1, 1st respondent herein is plaintiff, and respondents 2 to 5 herein are defendants 2 to 5, in the Original Suit. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance directing the defendants to execute sale deed(s) in favour of the plaintiff on ascertaining the correct extent of land by measurement as per FMB, receive the balance of sale consideration before the Joint Registrar and register the sale deeds, in respect of Ac.12.92 cents in R.S.No.198 and 169/2 of Pangidigudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal as well as Polasanipalli village, Bhimadole mandal, West Godavari district. The defendant No.1 was set ex parte on 13/12/2006. It is stated in the petition that 2nd defendant is younger brother of 1st defendant and 3rd defendant is wife of 2nd defendant. 2nd defendant was cultivating and used to look after the disputes if any with regard to lands. Some financial disputes arose between the brothers and as such 1st defendant enquired 2nd defendant about status of the present case. He gave evasive replies and as such 1st defendant entertained doubt. On that, he approached the counsel in Eluru, obtained photo copies of case documents and came to know that he was set ex parte on 7/6/2010. The counsel advised to file set aside petition and written statement. It is submitted by petitioner/1st defendant that his brother 2nd defendant colluded with plaintiff and deceived him. The alleged 'sale agreement' and also 'consent agreement/written understanding' were fabricated documents. No transaction took place at any point of time between plaintiff and himself. As 2nd defendant was telling him many times that he was taking care of the case and as such he did not try in person to know the details of the case in good faith on his brother. As his brother did not inform him about the ex parte order, he could not file the petition. The alleged agreement of sale dtd. 8/5/2004 is a fabricated document and he never sold his individual property to plaintiff and also written understanding document. Hence, the present petition.

4. Plaintiff filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the set aside petition and stating inter alia that all the three defendants entered into the suit agreement of sale in respect of their respective items and 1st defendant has thorough knowledge of the filing of the suit, its pendency and their contesting the suit. Along with other defendants, he filed Tr.CMP No.176 of 2019 before this Court seeking transfer of the said suit, which was dismissed on 28/12/2020. He is also a party to CRP No.1208 of 2021 filed before this Court against the Order in I.A.No.606 of 2013 passed in the suit and the said CRP was dismissed on 9/12/2021. Defendants 2 and 3 are behind the 1st defendant and there are no bona fides in filing the present petition. In the suit, evidence on plaintiff side is completed and it is coming up for evidence on defendants' side. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Defendants 2 and 3 filed separate counters in the I.A. admitting financial disputes with 1st defendant and stating inter alia that it is the duty of 1st defendant to look after his own case instead of blaming others. The reason assigned by 1st defendant is not a valid reason and 1st defendant is put to strict proof of the allegations.

6. The trial Court dismissed the petition vide the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present CRP is preferred.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner/1st defendant contended