IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, and the law of limitation must be applied rigorously.

ORDER :

K. Manmadha Rao, J.

1. Aggrieved by the orders dated 04.01.2018 passed in I.A. No.421 of 2016 in O.S.No. 966 of 2008 on the file of the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, (in short 'the court below) the present revision is filed.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant; respondent is the plaintiff before the court below.

3. The petitioner/defendant filed an impugned application under Order IX, rule 13 of C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him in O.S.No.966 of 2008. The court below dismissed the application, while observing the following, which reads as:

"5. Above all, if at all, the argument of the petitioner has to be accepted that the period of limitation runs from the date of knowledge, even then as per the averments of his own affidavit, wherein he stated that, when he was enquiring about his mother's land in the M.R.O's office, he came to know that the respondent obtained pass book in respect of schedule property after obtaining sale deed pursuant to the decree passed by the court and when he came to know about the respondent obtaining a decree is conveniently not mentioned by the petitioner in his affidavit, even otherwise the said contention shows he came to know about the sale deed in favour of the respondent prior to 21.04.2016. However, to suit his contentions he has mentioned the date as 21.04.2016, when he says to have come to know about the suit proceedings for the first time, which inconsistent pleadings of the petitioner with regard to the very factum of he coming to know about the suit proceedings throws any amount of doubt on the bonafides of the petitioner in approaching the court with this application, almost after 8 years of the decree being passed in O.S.No. 966/08, who though tried to convenience the court that the delay is only 15 days, if calculated from the date of knowledge when the petitioner came to know about the suit proceedings, which this court for the reasons assigned above did not believe. Hence, viewed from any corner there are no merits to allow the application. Accordingly petition is dismissed."

Assailing the same the present revision came to be filed.

4. Heard Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that after receipt of summons in O.S.No. 298 of 2016, the petitioner came to know about the ex parte decree in O.S.No. 966 of 2008. Hence, without any other alternative the petitioner filed the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree with delay condonation petition; hence the same needs to be allowed. Further the court below failed to appreciate that the petitioner has not at all executed the agreement of sale and the valuable rights of the petitioner are involved. Hence, an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner. It is further contended that the purposefully wrong address has been mentioned in O.S.No. 966 of 2008 and gave correct address in O.S.No. 298 of 2016, hence, it is very clear that there is a fraud played both on the petitioner and also on the court and obtained a fraudulent decree. Hence the revision is liable to be allowed.

6. Per contra, the respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the court below has rightly dismissed the application in I.A.No.421 of 2016 as it is devoid of merits. As per own averment of the petitioner in the affidavit in I.A.No.421 of 2016, it was stated about the ex parte decree on 21.04.2016. Be that as it may, the period of limitation runs from there on and the petitioner had to file the petition within 30 days from then. The petitioner claims to have been bed ridden till 02.06.2016, but no medical record was filed in support of her contention. The petitioner tried to misrepresent and mislead the court that the delay is 42 days. Further the petitioner has also filed a crimin