A party seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must provide bona fide and true reasons; where a party presents demonstrably false claims to explain the delay and approaches the court with unclean hands, the request for condonation must be rejected.

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the order dt. 23.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.886 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ongole and consequently allow the I.A.No.886 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ongole by restoring the suit to its original state and to pass such.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SRINIVASULU KURRA

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

C.R.P.No.2560 of 2025

This Court made the following

ORDER:

1. The present C.R.P. is filed aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.886 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole wherein the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 128 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 20.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.31 of 2018 was dismissed.

2. Petitioner herein is defendant and respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. For the convenience of this Court the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 03.06.2015 to direct the defendant/petitioner herein to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein with regard to the plaint scheduled property. If the defendant/petitioner herein failed to execute the registered sale deed, permit the plaintiff/respondent herein to obtain registered sale deed trough Court under due process of law. Even though the sole defendant/petitioner herein appeared before the trial Court through counsel but no written statement was filed within the time. Even after the Court below had granted time in number of occasions for filing written statement, but for one reason or the other the defendant/petitioner herein did not choose to file the written statement within statutory period i.e., by 04.06.2018. Therefore, the defendant/petitioner herein was set ex-parte for non-filing of written statement. While so, after completion of trial and an ex-parte decree was passed on 20.01.2023. Thereafter the defendant/petitioner filed petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 20.01.2023 vide I.A.No.886 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 with a delay of 128 days under Section 5 of Limitation Act. After enquiry and after hearing both parties, the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 128 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 20.01.2023 was dismissed on 23.07.2025 and the same was assailed before this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Learned counsel for defendant/petitioner herein submits that the defendant residing out of village for the purpose of education of his children and eking out his livelihood, due to which he could not contacted his counsel. Then when he was returned to his village on 29.06.2023 he was informed about the ex-parte order dated 20.01.2023. He further submits that the defendant/petitioner herein has good case to succeed in the suit and the defendant/petitioner herein also filed detailed written statement along with application under Order 9 Rule 13 vide I.A.No.886/2023 with a delay of 128 days i.e., from 21.02.2023 to 29.06.2023. The subject delay is n