ORDER:

The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor on 05.10.2020 in I.A.No.852/2017 in O.S.No.130/2016.

2. Petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit is decreed exparte by the Court below on 19.4.2017. I.A.No.852/2017 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 150 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree. The said I.A is dismissed by the Court below on the following grounds.

…As seen from the docket the chief affidavit of PW1 was filed on 27.01.2017 and on 01.3.2017 as defendant was called absent he was set exparte. Subsequently on 17.3.2017 PW2 was present and defendant was called absent and on 27.3.2017 chief affidavit of PW2 was recorded. On 03.4.2017 the counsel for respondent-plaintiff adduced arguments and the matter is posted to 04.4.2017 for Judgment. On 04.4.2017 a petition filed by the petitioner the matter is reopened and it is posted to 12.4.2017 for cross-examination of PW1 and PW2. On 12.4.2017 defendant was not present, did not cross-examine PW1 and PW2, resulting which judgment was delivered on 19.4.2017.

All this clearly goes to show the intention of petitioner that he is not interested to proceed with the case and he wants to drag the matter as long as possible and to procrastinate the suit at his own whims and fancies. The attitude of petitioner is apparent that he wants to keep the record in the state of hibernation once for all. If such is the intention the petitioner shall not be given an opportunity. Even otherwise if petitioner has suffered with Jaundice on 01.3.2017, immediately on the next day or in couple of days he would have appeared before the court. But, even though he was given an opportunity he did not avail it and did not cross-examine PW1 and PW2. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief since the present petition is filed with delay of 150 days which is not properly explained.

3. Notice served on the respondent, but the respondent did not choose to file his appearance. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner/defendant was not present on that particular day because of his ill-health and subsequently the previous counsel has not informed about the exparte decree passed by the Court below on 19.4.2017 and subsequently he came to know about the exparte decree. He engaged present counsel and filed the present I.A. for condonation of delay. But he could not be able to file the document supporting his contention along with the I.A. The fact remains that he has suffered with Jaundice on that day and only for that reason, he is not present and for the delay is concerned, the previous counsel has not informed about the exparte decree.

4. Considering the said submissions, the order passed in I.A.No.852/2017 in O.S.No.130/2016 on 05.10.2020 is set aside and liberty is given to the petitioner to file a better affidavit with supporting documents and the Court below is directed to decide the same on merits after giving liberty to all the parties and pass appropriate orders. It is not out of place to mention that instead of deciding the case on technicalities, it should be decided on merits by giving liberty to all the parties to get substantial justice.

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.

________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.446 of 2021