THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3706 of 2023

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13-09-2023 in I.A.No.1599/2022 in I.A.No.1471/2022 in O.S.No.1207/2012 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, whereby the underlying Interlocutory Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner herein is a Private Limited Company and arrayed as defendant No.2 in the suit filed by the 1^st respondent herein. The underlying Interlocutory Application has been filed by the petitioner herein before the trial Court.

3. The 1^st respondent herein had filed the subject suit as plaintiff seeking performance of an agreement of sale dated

27-05-2010 against the defendants therein.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for 1^st respondent, and perused the record.

5. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the 1^st respondent herein had filed the subject suit seeking execution of sale deed pursuant to agreement of sale dated 27-05-2010, claiming that the petitioner herein along with other defendants in the suit are not coming forward to complete the transaction of sale by executing the sale deed in his favour.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the suit filed by the 1^st respondent herein was posted to 17-06-2013 for filing of its written statement; that in the month of May,2013, the petitioner had suffered health problem and as such, could not contact its counsel to file written statement; and that the trial Court had set it ex-parte on 17-06-2013 and proceeded further in the suit.

7. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since, on account of the petitioner suffering from serious ill-health, written statement could not be filed within the time and the said non- filing is neither willful nor wanton, and thus, sought for condoning the delay of 17 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 17-06-2013.

8. It is the further case of petitioner that the trial Court had failed to consider the underlying Interlocutory Application filed in correct and proper perspective and failed to appreciate that the petitioner herein would not stand to benefit by remaining ex parte in the suit.

9. It is also contended that since, the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the trial Court ought to have considered the underlying Interlocutory Application by adopting a liberal approach in order to do complete justice rather than depriving the petitioner herein to put forth its defence thereby preventing its entry at the earlier.

10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Gogireddy Eswara Reddy and another Vs. Tangirala Hanumayamma, 2015(1) ALD 503 (DB) and Pingle Naresh Reddy Vs. Pingle Sita Reddy and others, MANU/TL/0531/2023

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 1^st respondent/plaintiff would contend that not only the present Revision is misconceived, so also the underlying Interlocutory Application filed before the trial Court.

12. On behalf of the 1^st respondent, it is contended that firstly, the petitioner cannot invoke the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking for setting aside the order dated 17-06-2013 whereby it was set ex parte, after the suit itself has been decreed in favour of the 1^st respondent herein on due contest by the 1^st defendant in the suit, and that the decree passed on contest is not an ex parte decree for the petitioner to invoke the provision of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

13. The 1^st respondent would further contend that the petitioner having been set ex parte in the year 2013 and having waited for four long years till