ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent No.7-Legal Representative of respondent No.1/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2024 in I.A No.350 of 2019 in O.S No.65 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy District.

2. I.A No.350 of 2019 was filed by the defendant No.3 to condone the delay of (242) days in filing the petition to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2018 in O.S No.65 of 2016.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.447/E3/2, admeasuring Ac.1-01 gunta, situated at Tellapur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District and for the consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 24.07.2018. The defendant No.3 filed I.A No.350 of 2019 to condone the delay of (242) days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and judgment in O.S No.65 of 2016 dated 24.07.2018. As per the affidavit filed by the Manager of the defendant No.3- Company. The defendant No.3 was not served with summons in the suit.

The plaintiff deliberately furnished wrong address in the suit to avoid service of summons on defendant No.3. Though, summons were ordered on 13.04.2017, the plaintiff did not choose to deposit the process fee on any subsequent dates till 23.01.2018, and mischievously got the suit posted on 23.03.2018 for steps and caused publication of summons through substitute service by carrying publication in Janatha News Paper, which was not in wide circulation in the local area. As such, the defendant No.3 was not aware of the suit and could not appear in the suit. There was no occasion for the defendant No.3 to know about the proceedings in the above suit. He came to know about the suit and decree passed therein on 19.02.2019 through the villagers. Immediately, he got verified the records and came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 24.07.2018 and applied for certified copies on the very next day. The certified copies were furnished on 25.03.2019.

3.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner-Company was a registered AGPA holder of D1 and D2 and also have Development Agreement-Cum-GPA’s in its favour from subsequent purchasers. Unless the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 24.07.2018 made in the above suit was set aside and it was permitted to contest the suit by filing its written statement therein, it would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.

4. The legal representatives of the plaintiff filed counter contending that the plaintiff deposited process for issuing summons to the defendants before the Court but the defendant No.3 intentionally avoided receiving the summons. After giving sufficient opportunity, the Court gave paper publication. The publication was also given in a largest circulated News Paper. The defendant No.3 was set ex-parte, after giving sufficient opportunity and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The trial Court vide the impugned order allowed the application filed by the defendant No.3 on costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the plaintiff by 20.11.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.7, the legal representatives of respondent No.1/plaintiff preferred this C.R.P.

6. Heard Sri M.Rammohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent – defendant No.3.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned judge recorded a finding in para No.9 of the impugned order that summons were served on the respondent – defendant No.3 by way of publication and ex-parte decree was passed on 29.06.2018. In such, scenario reckoning the delay from the date of alleged knowledge of the decree but not from the date of decree was illegal and unsustainable. The delay was condoned without recording