The court clarified that the time frame for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, allowing for extensions in exceptional circumstances, emphasizing parties' responsibility in managing their cases.

ORDER :

RENUKA YARA, J.

1. Heard Mr. V. Hanmanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Perused the record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.407 of 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, wherein, a petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay of 1925 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte order passed against the revision petitioner, has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.159 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar against the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking specific performance of Agreement of sale, dated 05.09.2016 and to declare the registered sale deed dated 26.05.2018 vide document No.8657 of 2018 executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2 as null and void with respect to the suit schedule land consisting of Ac.2.15 Gts., in Sy.No.168/E situated at Akuthotapally Village of Amangal Mandal, R.R.District (previously Mahabubnagar District). Said suit on account of reorganization of Districts has been re-numbered as O.S.No.51 of 2022 and is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar.

4. In said suit, the revision petitioner herein has been set ex-parte on 30.04.2019 and his right to file written statement has been forfeited. The reason stated for non-filing of written statement is that the petitioner engaged a counsel by name Sri. Laxma Reddy to defend the suit. Said counsel impressed upon the petitioner that he would inform the petitioner whenever his presence is necessary. Due to personal inconvenience and COVID-19, there was no contact between the petitioner and the counsel and thereafter due to reorganization of Districts, the suit was transferred from the Senior Civil Judge's Court at Mahabubnagar to the Senior Civil Judge's Court at Shadnagar. The petitioner was under the impression that fresh notices would be served on the parties after transfer of cases. However, no such thing happened. Meanwhile the petitioner heard rumours that due to non-filing of written statement, his rights were forfeited and he has no right to contest the matter. Upon hearing this rumours, the revision petitioner engaged the present counsel and made enquiry about the status of the suit. Upon enquiry, it is revealed that the petitioner has been set ex-parte due to non filing of written statement and currently the respondent No.1 has led evidence and the matter stood posted for cross examination of PW1 by the respondent No.2.

5. At this juncture, the revision petitioner filed the petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC with a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1925 days in filing the petition. The respondent No.1 opposed the petition by filing written counter stating that the reasons cited for non-filing of written statement i.e. engaging the counsel by name Lakshma Reddy and said counsel not giving proper guidance to the petitioner, followed by making enquiry and learning about the status of the case, are all denied.

6. Upon considering the case of the revision petitioner, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. Further, it is held that a person who is unaware of law may not escape the liability by violating the law merely by being unaware of its contents. Further, the learned Trial Court examined the fact that the petitioner herein was set ex-parte in April, 2019 and that COVID started in March, 2020 and after February, 2022 onwards, the courts were running for one year before COVID and for two years after COVID, the petitioner has not taken any steps. Therefore, the reasons stated for delay were not considered and the petition was