IMPORTANT POINT
Conditions for setting aside an ex parte decree must be reasonable, and delays in filing applications must be adequately explained.

ORDER :

(K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.)

Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the common order dated 24.03.2022 passed in IA Nos.801 and 802 of 2019 in OS No.155 of 2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in the above suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit in OS No.155 of 2018 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,10,800/- due under three suit promissory notes with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit till realization. Since the defendant was not present, he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed in the said suit on 23.04.2019. Thereafter, the present IAs were filed by the defendant seeking to set aside the said ex parte decree by condoning the delay of 120 days in filing the set aside petition.

5. The defendant stated in his affidavit filed in support of the petition that he did not receive any notice or summons in the suit and the plaintiff gave wrong door number purposefully, managed the postal authorities and obtained ex parte decree behind his back in order to harass him. He further stated that on receipt of notice in EP proceedings, he came to know about the suit proceedings.

6. A counter came to be filed in the IAs stating that the defendant got ample knowledge about the suit proceedings and on every occasion, the plaintiff informed the defendant over phone and requested for discharge of the debt, but the defendant intentionally avoided the same. As the defendant evaded to receive the suit summons, the Court ordered substituted service and accordingly the same was published in Andhra Prabha Krishna district edition. The suit underwent several adjournments and finally decreed on 23.04.2019. It is further stated that pursuant to passing of decree, the plaintiff filed EP No.125 of 2019 and when the said EP reached the stage of sale of immovable property of the defendant, he filed the present IAs only with a view to defeat the entire EP proceedings.

7. By a common order dated 24.03.2022, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, allowed the said IAs subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRPs have been filed.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein/plaintiff submits that no reasons are given by the learned Senior Civil Judge for allowing the IAs in order to condone the inordinate delay of 120 days in filing the set aside petition and the learned Judge failed to appreciate the law in proper perspective.

10. Admittedly, the suit underwent several adjournments from time to time and later an ex parte decree was passed on 23.04.2019. As suit summons was not served on the defendant, the plaintiff has taken steps for publishing the same in a daily Newspaper i.e., "Andhra Prabha" Krishna district edition. It goes without saying that the plaintiff would have informed the defendant with regard to filing of suit and for payment of money to him. Despite the same, the defendant has kept quiet and slept over for years and when the EP proceedings were initiated and when it reached the stage of sale of his immovable property, he filed the present IAs with a delay of 120 days without explaining any reasons for such delay, except stating that no notice or suit summons were served on him. Article 123 of the Limitation Act specifies that time begins to run from the date of decree or where the summons or notice was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/plaintiff has relied upon a decision reported in V.K.Industries v. M.P. Electricity Board, Rampur, Jabalpur (Ap