ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30.08.2022 in C.M.A.No.8 of 2019, on the file of Principal District Judge, Jagitial which arose out of the order in I.A.No.339 of 2014 in O.S.No.4 of 2014 dated 11.07.2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4 of 2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed before the Court below.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Initially, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and her agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.7-34 gts in Sy.No.801 situated at Namillikonda Revenue Village of Kodimial Mandal, Karimangar District and also to declare the registered sale deed bearing document No.1469 of 2013 dated 29.03.2013 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Mallial, Karimnagar District as null and void and not binding against the plaintiffs.

5. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the son and mother respectively. In nutshell, the averments in the plaint are that the father of the 1st plaintiff and husband of the 2nd plaintiff by name Kallepu Raji Reddy died intestate on 26.03.2010 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs who was holding a joint family agricultural land to an extent of Ac.8-13 gts, in Sy.No.801, situated at Namillikonda Revenue Village of Kodimial Mandal, Karimangar District and thus the plaintiffs have share over the said property. It is the specific averment in the plaint that a group of unsocial elements with an intention to grab the suit schedule property created agreement of sale-cum-GPA without payment of sale consideration in the name of Kallepu Raji Reddy on 23.03.2007 and basing on it, the possession was handed over to the GPA holder. But, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the property and cultivating the same, even after the death of Kallepu Raji Reddy they have also raised green gram crop. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that after the death of K. Raji Reddy, the GPA-cum-Agreement of Sale has expired and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the GPA holder has executed registered sale deed on 29.03.2013 in favour of the defendant, which is not valid in the eye of law and therefore, filed a suit for cancellation of said sale deed and also sought for relief of declaration of tile as well as the possession of the property.

6. The record reveals that the respondents were set ex-parte as they refused to receive summons of the Court and the trial Court has examined the 1st plaintiff as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-17. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, the trial Court has decreed the suit with costs declaring the plaintiffs as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and also declared registered sale deed of the defendant bearing document No.1469 of 2013 dated 29.03.2013 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4 of 2014 dated 22.04.2014, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial, the defendant has preferred CMA.No.8 of 2019 along with two interlocutory applications i.e., I.A.No.338 of 2014 and I.A.No.339 of 2014 to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the petition and to set aside the exparte decree dated 22.04.2014 respectively. It is the specific contention of the defendant before the appellate Court i.e., Principal District Judge, Jagitial that no summons were served on her and that process server did not come to her house and she did not refuse to receive summons. It is the contention of the defendant that she only came to know about the ex-parte decree dated 22.04.2014 when her supervisor informed that the plaintiff No.1 has approached to the suit schedule property and served copy of the ex-parte decree dated 22.04.2014 and