ORDER :

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.

1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram in I.A.No.514 of 2024 in O.S.No.23 of 2020 dated 23.08.2024.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred as arrayed before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed suit against the petitioner/Defendant No.1 for recovery of suit amount due under the bank transactions and for other reliefs. The said suit was posted to 06.12.2021 for appearance and filing written statement. Neither Petitioner/Defendant No.1 nor his counsel attended the Court on 06.12.2021. Since, there was no representation on behalf of petitioner/Defendant No.1, the Trial Court passed an order of ex parte.

4. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner/Defendant No.1 herein contended that he was suffering from Jaundice and has taken country medicines, as such, he could not attend the Court on the date of hearing and that he has got good case in the suit and there are chances to succeed the said suit by him.

5. Respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed counter affidavit before the Trial Court denying material averments, while contending that that the petitioner/Defendant No.1 has not filed any medical certificate along with the petition and not shown the name of the doctor and the place of treatment and other essential particulars of the treatment, but simply referred in the affidavit that he had fell sick due to Jaundice and has taken country made medicine. As such, no proper and good cause was assigned by the petitioner/Defendant No.1 for his non- appearance or his counsel on 06.12.2021 and unless the petitioner/Defendant No.1 assigns good cause for his non- appearance, he is not entitled to have the exparte order being set aside and the present application is also filed after lapse of 2 ½ years without any genuine reasons and requested to dismiss the petition.

6. Upon hearing both the counsel, the Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.514 of 2024 in O.No.23 of 2020 dated 23.08.2024, observing that there are no sufficient reasons for non-appearance of petitioner/Defendant No.1 and his counsel and non filing of any documentary evidence to believe the cause shown by the petitioner/Defendant No.1 is true and correct. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.514 of 2024 in O.No.23 of 2020 dated 23.08.2024, the present civil revision petition is filed.

7. During hearing, Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner/Defendant No.1 mainly contended that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner/Defendant No.1, as it would cause no prejudice to Respondent No.1/Plaintiff. Since the petitioner/Defendant No.1 suffered from infection to his liver and severe jaundice, he could not attend the Court and he could not give instructions to his counsel, thus, he was incapacitated due to his illness to take care of the subject suit. He further contended that the Courts should be liberal while dealing with such matters by imposing costs or conditions and permit the petitioner/Defendant No.1 to take part in the trial of the suit. He further contended that, medical certificate would not be given for administering the country medicine and asking for doctor certificate is impermissible. Learned counsel further contended that, there is no limitation to set-aside the application filed under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C since the suit is pending and coming for cross examination of P.W.1. Therefore, the application is not barred by limitation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner/Defendant No.1 relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.P. Srivastava vs. R.K. Raizada and others, (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 54 and High Court of Madras in Pilla Reddy vs. Thimmaraya Reddy, 1997 (1) MadLJ 37. On the strength of the principle