The court upheld the dismissal of a petition to set aside an ex parte order, emphasizing the importance of timely actions in legal proceedings.

Challenging the order dated 25.04.2024 passed in E.A. No.428 of 2023 in E.A No.71 of 2017 in E.A. No.116 of 2016 in Original Execution Petition No.9 of 2015 in Original Suit No.59 of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent No.6 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, being the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.59 of 2015 for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale and the said suit was decreed ex parte in their favour. Pursuant to the said decree, they filed E.P.No.09 of 2015 seeking execution and registration of sale deed through Court. The said Execution Petition was allowed and accordingly a registered sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1 through the process of the Court. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Execution Application No.116 of 2016 for delivery of possession. In execution of the said order, possession of the property was delivered to respondent No.1 through due process of law. At this juncture, respondent No.1, being the original purchaser, alienated the plaint schedule property in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 41 by executing registered sale deeds and delivered possession of their respective plots. Subsequently, a claim petition in E.A.No.71 of 2017 under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC came to be filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the execution proceedings. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein, who remained ex parte in the suit as well as the Execution proceedings, filed Execution Application No.428 of 2023 seeking to set aside the ex parte order with a delay of 1133 days. The said Execution Application was dismissed under its order dated 25.04.2024 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati holding that if the application was to be allowed, the rights that had accrued to the respondents pursuant to the decree passed by this Court would result in revival of a stale litigation causing undue hardship and that third party interests created under registered sale deeds might also be affected. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Tagore Yadav, learned counsel, representing Sri C.Srinivas Baba, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed along with the petition and the grounds urged in the revision, contended that the subject property itself is seriously disputed between the parties and that the Court below ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case on merits. The Court below failed to see that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the application was allowed, as the sale deed had already been executed in favour of the agreement holders by virtue of decree dated 02.05.2015. He further submits that the said decree was also passed ex parte against the petitioner without service of summons in the suit. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

5. On the other hand, Sri Takoor, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contends that petitioner herein was only a GPA holder and that his GPA was cancelled by the original land owners on 16.07.2009. Despite cancellation of the GPA, the petitioner allegedly executed an Agreement of sale in favour of third parties on 27.08.2009. He further contends that the original landowners executed a registered sale deed in favour of the husband of respondent No.1 and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 became the absolute owners. K