ORDER:

Defendant in suit filed the above revision against the order dated 16.03.2023 in I.A.No.818 of 2022 in O.S.No.965 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2. Respondent being plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.965 of 2020 against the defendant seeking eviction. Initially defendant remained exparte. Defendant filed I.A.No.161 of 2022 to set aside the exparte order dated 28.03.2021. The same was allowed on 28.06.2022 on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to Mandal Legal Services Authority. It was adjourned to 18.07.2022 for compliance. However, the conditional order was not complied with and hence I.A.No.161 of 2022 stands dismissed. Eventually, suit was decreed on 03.08.2022.

3. E.P was filed pursuant to the judgment in the decree. Petitioner filed application to condone the delay of 108 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated

03.08.2022.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was contended that petitioner’s son received the summons and engaged one Sri B. Venkata Rao, learned counsel. Written statement was also filed along with I.A.No.161 of 2022. Due to communication gap, petitioner could not pay the costs of Rs.500/- and as a result, I.A.No.161 of 2022 stands dismissed. Petitioner came to know about the subsequent proceedings when Amin came to the schedule property and immediately got filed the present petition. In the process delay of 108 days occurred in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree.

5. Respondent/Plaintiff filed the counter and opposed the application. Trial Court by order dated 16.03.2023 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

6. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I. Subramanyeswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is aged about 66 years and uneducated. Petitioner’s son received the summons and engaged one Sri. B. Venkata Rao as defendant’s counsel. Initially, petition was filed to set aside the exparte order I.A.No.161 of 2022 along with the written statement. The same was allowed by the trial Court on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. However, the same was not even informed to the petitioner. Non-compliance is neither willful nor wanton. Eventually, the suit itself was decreed on 03.08.2022. According to the learned counsel petitioner is claiming title to the schedule property. Trial Court without considering these aspects dismissed the application.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that at every stage, petitioner is negligent in prosecuting this suit. I.A.No.161 of 2022 was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Petitioner failed to comply with to the said condition. This instance makes the things more than discernable that petitioner is prosecuting the case diligently. Trial Court considered all these aspects and dismissed the application.

9. The point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner shown proper reason to condone the delay of 108 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 03.08.2022?

10. Suit O.S.No.965 of 2020 is filed seeking eviction of the defendant. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was contended about petitioner’s son engaging advocate and also filing written statement along with the interlocutory application. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the case. However, when the trial Court allowed I.A.No.161 of 2022 on payment of Rs.500/-, petitioner could not comply with the condition. Petitioner would contend that she was not informed about the costs imposed by the trial Court. Eventually, the suit was decreed on 03.08.2022.

11. In Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy1, the Hon’ble Apex Court broadly culled out the following principles:

i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice