ORDER:

Being aggrieved by the decision of the lower Court in not condoning the delay of 533 days the petitioner therein has approached this Court under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code invoking the revisional jurisdiction where under she challenged the impugned Order dated 31.10.2019 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram in I.A.No.1135 of 2018 in O.S.No.283 of 2014.

2. The respondent herein was the respondent in the proceedings before the learned trial Court. Learned Counsels on both sides had made their arguments and for the revision petitioner support is taken on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

3. The point arises for consideration is:-

Whether there was illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction in not condoning 533 of days of delay on the part of the learned trial Court requiring interference in this revision?

4. POINT:-

O.S. No.283 of 2014 before learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram was a suit for recovery of money based on the promissory note. The sole defendant made her appearance through her learned counsel and filed written statement. During the subsequent phases it seems the defendant did not participate in the trial process and as a consequence the suit was finally went ahead exparte resulting in a decree in favour of the plaintiff therein. Subsequently, the defendant intended to move an application to have the exparte decree set aside and in the process she found that there was delay of 533 days to move such an application and hence she filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 533 days for filing an application to set aside the exparte decree and it is that Section 5 of C.P.C. that became I.A.No.1135 of 2018. Resisting the contentions raised in that petition the respondent therein who was the plaintiff filed his counter and after due hearing and enquiry the learned trial Court passed the impugned order which is now the subject matter of challenge.

5. This revision petitioner in his sworn affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1135 of 2018 stated that she is an innocent house wife and she engaged Sri D.Pradeep, Advocate on her behalf and she believed that her counsel would intimate the dates to her but he never informed the dates of the case. That on 17.05.2018 she received notices in E.P.No.9 of 2018 in O.S.283 of 2014 and then telephoned to her counsel Sri D.Pradeep, but he gave reckless answers and thereafter she obtained certified copies of Judgment and Decree and came to understand that her counsel did not attend the Court and allowed the suit to proceed exparte on 16.11.2016. It is to set aside that decree, she wanted to file an application and in that process to have the delay condoned she moved the present application. An elaborate counter was filed by the respondent herein before the learned trial Court and at Page Nos.3 and 4 copious references were made to precedent on the aspect of law. Finally he sought for dismissal of the application.

6. On considering the affidavit, counter and submissions made on both sides, the learned court raised a question as to whether this revision petitioner was able to show sufficient reason to condone the delay of 533 days. On an analysis, it found that it was always the duty of a client to consult her counsel and the material before the Court indicated that the client was negligent and did not ever think of contacting her counsel to know about the stage and status of proceedings and she could not simply throw the blame on the counsel and further recorded that the delay of 533 days is abnormal and it was not explained by any sufficient cause whatsoever. It is further recorded that had the delay been a shorter one, the communication gap between the client and the counsel could be liberally condoned but not otherwise as in case of abnormal delays like the one available at hand. It was on those reasons the learned trial Court refused to condone the delay.

7. In this revision what all that was stated in