The court emphasized that delay in filing to set aside an ex parte decree must be justified with valid reasons, and a liberal approach does not permit fanciful explanations.

ORDER :

K. Sarath, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 25.04.2024, passed in I.A.No.280 of 2023 in O.S.No.2 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 to condone the delay 298 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 08.09.2022, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

3. The facts leading to filing the present revision petition are that, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit vide O.S.No.2 of 2022 against the petitioner/defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 seeking specific performance of the agreement sale and for cancellation of registered sale deed No.3311/2021 dated 01.12.2021. On 25.03.2022 when the suit was called for appearance of the defendants, both the defendants were absent and therefore the defendants were set ex parte on 25.03.2022 and an exparte decree was passed on 08.09.2022. Thereafter the petitioner filed petition vide I.A.No.280 of 2023 in O.S.No.2 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 298 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree but the same was dismissed through impugned order.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the daughter of the petitioner was admitted in hospital at Nagarkunrool for delivery and in view of the same, the petitioner could not appear before the Court on 25.03.2022 and thereby could not file Vakalath and therefore she was exparte and thereafter ex parte decree was passed on 08.09.2022. The absence of the petitioner on 25.03.2022 was neither willful nor wanton and there are chances to succeed the petitioner in the suit.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the suit is filed for specific performance in between the parties, which has to be decided on merits, but not on technicalities and the trial Court erroneously dismissed the condone delay petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court time and again held that in condone delay petitions, the Courts have to be in liberal approach and requested to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on the following Judgment.

1. Cripless Paradise, rep. by its Secretary, Venna Gayatri Nagar Kumari Vs. Adagarla Rajesh 2024 (4) ALT 330 (AP)

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that though summons in the suit were duly served on both the defendants they kept quiet and remained absent on 25.03.2022, and therefore both the defendants were set ex parte . Thereafter, evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was recorded after lapse of almost six months and an ex parte decree was passed on 08.09.2022. Even after passing of the decree, the petitioner remained silent and moved the petition after 298 days for setting aside the ex parte decree along with condone delay petition. The petitioner did not mention the name of the hospital in which her daughter was admitted for delivery. There was sufficient time to the petitioner to contact her advocate, but she intentionally kept quite. The respondent also filed E.P.No.9 of 2023 and deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and when the E.P was coming up to reserve the slot booking to get the draft sale deed before the Tahsildar, Peddakohtapally, the petitioner moved the petition to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree but not filed petition for setting aside the exparte order dated 25.03.2022 and the Court below rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

8. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, who is the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.2 of