HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5 & 7 of 2025 COMMMON ORDER Heard Sri Tangeda Dayananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff and Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent - defendant. Perused the record.

2. The petitioner herein had filed a suit vide O.S.No.95 of 2016 against the respondent herein for perpetual injunction restraining him and his agents etc., from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed on 27.02.2017 ex parte. Therefore, the respondent herein had filed two applications i.e., I.A.No.839 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1979 days from 28.02.2017 to 29.07.2022 in filing petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C to set-aside the ex parte decree and I.A.No.712 of 2022 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C to set-aside the ex parte decree and judgment dated

27.02.2017 contending as follows:

(i) He is diagnosed with CAD-Usnstable Angina, LBBB, CAG-SVD (LAD) (27/4/21) and planned for PTCA to LAD with 1 DES and seriously fell-ill. He was advised to take bed rest.

(ii) He was aged 75 years as on the said date.

(iii) Apart from the aforesaid ailments, he is also suffering from other old age ailments.

3. Therefore, the respondent herein could not contact his advocate all these days and could not file written statement in the said suit and counter in interim injunction application. Therefore, he was set ex parte on 27.02.2017. After recovery from Covid-19, he came to know about passing of said ex parte decree. Therefore, he sought to condone the delay of 1979 days occurred in filing application to set-aside the ex parte decree.

4. The petitioner herein has filed counter opposing the said applications contending that the respondent herein appeared before the trial Court on 18.07.2016 through his learned counsel and entered appearance. Therefore, he was in contact with his counsel. He has been appearing in C.C.No.273 of 2017 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad. He has also filed representation before the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records against the respondent herein for surveying the land in dispute. Therefore, he has not explained day-to-day delay for 1979 days caused in filing application to set-aside the ex parte decree and judgment.

5. Vide order dated 28.03.2024 learned trial allowed I.A.No.839 of 2022 condoning delay of 1979 days by holding that the respondent herein is suffering from ill- health, due to which he could not contact his counsel and he is aged 70 years and filed certificate to the said effect. The learned trial Court while condoning the said delay imposed costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the Mandal Legal Services Authority, within (03) months from the date of the said order. Challenging the said order dated 28.03.2024 in I.A.No.839 of 2022 in O.S.No.95 of 2016 passed by learned trial Court, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.7 of 2025. Similarly, learned trial Court vide order dated 08.11.2024 allowed I.A. No.712 of 2022 filed by the respondent herein to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27.02.2017 with costs of Rs.1,000/- payable to the petitioner herein with a direction to file written statement on the next date of hearing without fail. Challenging the order also, the petitioner has filed C.R.P.No.5 of 2025.

6. This Court heard Sri Tangeda Dayananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent extensively.

7. There is no dispute with regard to filing of the suit and passing of ex parte decree on 27.02.2017. There is also no dispute that the respondent herein is accused in C.C.No.273 of 2017 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad. There is also no dispute that the respondent had executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of his wife in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.No.1011, situated at Challuru Revenue Vill