THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 24 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri V. Srikantha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P. Devender, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, in I.A.No.550 of 2024 in O.S.No.286 of 2021.

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that petitioner herein filed O.S.No.286 of 2021 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,26,000/- basing on a promissory note dated 07.01.2019. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 07.12.2022. Thereafter, 1^st respondent/ 1^st defendant has filed an application vide I.A.No.550 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 366 days from 07.12.2022 to 09.01.2024 in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree, on the ground that she has family and health problems. Therefore, she did not engage any lawyer nor filed written statement. She came to know about passing of the said judgment and decree only on 20.11.2023, that too, when petitioner/plaintiff is canvassing in the Village about the same. In the aforesaid I.A., petitioner has filed counter contending that 1^st respondent has not explained the day-to-day delay properly and the reasons mentioned by

1^st respondent in the affidavit are not satisfactory.

4. Vide order under revision dated 04.11.2024, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge allowed the aforesaid I.A. holding that the reasons explained by 1^st respondent are satisfactory and the suit is filed for recovery of money basing on promissory note. Therefore, opportunity has to be given to 1^st respondent herein to contest the said suit. Challenging the said order, petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition contending that without considering the fact that 1^st respondent failed to explain the day-to-day delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 07.12.2022, the learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid I.A. vide order under revision dated 04.11.2024.

5. As discussed supra, 1^st respondent has filed the aforesaid I.A. to condone the delay of 366 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that she is suffering from family and health problems and she did not engage any Advocate and file written statement and she came to know about passing of aforesaid ex parte judgment and decree only when the petitioner/plaintiff is canvassing the same in the Village. On consideration of the said aspects, vide order under revision dated 04.11.2024, the learned trial Court allowed the said I.A. imposing on 1^st respondent the costs of Rs.1,500/- payable to the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Huzurabad, within 45 days. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice this Court that respondent No.1 has paid the said amount in compliance with the said order. There is no error in the said order under revision.

6. As rightly observed by the learned trial Court, the suit is for recovery of money. Therefore, the trial Court has to afford an opportunity to 1^st respondent. Further, petitioner/plaintiff filed the said suit basing on promissory note. Therefore, to do substantial justice, this Court is of the view that liberty has to be given to 1^st respondent to defend his case on merits. Accordingly, on consideration of the said aspects only, the learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid I.A. condoning the delay of 366 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 07.12.2022. Hence, it is a reasoned order. Therefore, deciding an I.A. filed under Order IX, Rule - 13 of CPC would be only formal.

7. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the learned trial Court to di