A party's knowledge of a lawsuit does not negate the right to challenge an ex-parte decree if sufficient cause for delay in filing is shown, and interlocutory evidence does not require strict proof.

Order :

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against an order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler, in I.A.No.669 of 2012 in O.S.No.42 of 2002.

2. The learned Court below has dismissed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed in support of an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to condone the delay of 768 days.

3. The brief facts of the matter are that a suit was filed by the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution against the present petitioner and others. Suit was dismissed as time-barred against the official respondents but decreed ex-parte against the present petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 768 days. Learned trial Court has heard the parties, perused the evidence led by the petitioner and could not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, thereby application under of Limitation Act was dismissed without costs. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Section 5 of Limitation Act application that the summons in the suit was never served upon him as he was away from the village and the address shown in cause title of the suit. It is further contended that he was working as a lecturer at Kakinada and not aware of all the proceedings. He first of all came to know about the suit from his friend thereafter verifying the records from the Court, he filed a suit for cancellation of decree. But the same suit was rejected on the finding that he had a remedy to file an application under order IX Rule 13 of CPC. The said order was also not informed by his learned counsel within time. On 25.08.2012, when he came to Piler to visit his village and tried to met the Advocate, the advocate was away from the town and, through telephone, informed him that plaint was rejected. Due to the cause, the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was filed in a delay of 768 days. In justifying his application, the petitioner himself deposed as P.W.1 and one his friend deposed as P.W.2. Some documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is Master Degree issued by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University in favour of the petitioner, Ex.A2 is experience certificate issued by Progressive Engineering College from 01.11.2005 to 30.11.2005, Ex.A3 is original degree given in favour of the petitioner, Ex.A4 is the original appointment letter dated 06.11.2006 and Ex.A5 is the service certificate issued by Jawaharlal Nehru University, Kakinada, stating that the petitioner worked there from 01.12.2006 to 25.12.2012. In deciding the application, the learned Court below is of the opinion that though the petitioner filed those exhibits that he was working at Kakinada at the date of serving of summons, the documents i.e., Exs.A1 to A5 were not proved through the maker of the document and therefore he did not placed reliance upon those documents.

5. Learned Court below is also opined that the petitioner did not file any copy of plaint for cancellation of decree and the order passed by the concerned Court in rejecting the said suit. Thus, it appears to the learned Court below that the petitioner has intentionally suppressed the documents regarding earlier proceedings. On the basis of such observations, it appeared to the learned Court below that the ground as stated in the application under Section 5 of Limitation Ac