THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

COMMON ORDER

Heard Sri. Mehboob Ali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri. V.Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

2. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the same issue, they are analogously heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

3. Civil Revision Petition No.522 of 2025: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to set aside the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in I.A. No. 627 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 by the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the trial Court’). By the impugned order, the petition filed by the respondent/defendant under Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 672 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023, was allowed by the trial Court.

4. Civil Revision Petition No.552 of 2025: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to set aside the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in I.A. No. 628 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 by the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the trial Court’). By the impugned order, the petition filed by the respondent/defendant under Order XXXVIII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023, was allowed by the trial Court.

5. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

6. The brief facts of the case are that initially, the plaintiff filed a summary suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,59,666/- from the defendant with interest at 12% per annum on basis of demand promissory note dated 07.09.202; cheque bearing No.000096 dated 15.06.2022, drawn on HDFC bank, Mallepally, Vijaynagar Colony Branch; cheque return memo dated 20.06.2022; legal notice dated 02.07.2022, postal receipts dated 02.07.2022; track report taken from the Indian Post Web site evidencing the service of legal notice and original postal acknowledgment card in proof of service of legal notice dated

02.07.2022. Lastly, the plaintiff produced his bank account to prove the payment of loan amount to the defendant.

7. Summons were received on 16.11.2022 and appearance is made through counsel by name K. Venkataiah who filed vakalath on 21.11.2022 behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, judgment summons were served on the defendant on 20.12.2022. After service of judgment summons, the defendant ought to have filed petition seeking leave to defend within the stipulated time but there was failure to do so. Hence, the suit was decreed. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed E.P. No. 255 of 2023 for recovery of suit amount of Rs.8,94,840/-. When summons received in the E.P. No. 255 of 2023 on 17.10.2024, the defendant learned about the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 and therefore, filed the I.As. under both the revision petitions i.e., to condone the delay of 672 days and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023.

8. The trial Court allowed I.A. No. 627 of 2024 in O.S. No.

4712 of 2022 on 31.12.2024 by passing the following order:

“7. POINT:- The suit is filed for recovery of money. It is the contention of the petitioner is in need for financial assistance, he took a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.000015 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank dated 08.09.2021 from respondent/plaintiff and not of Rs.7,00,000/- as claimed in the suit. Since the defendant is contending that he has good case to defend and he is not liable to pay the suit amount, this Court is of the opinion that to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the point is answered in the affirmative and the delay of 672 days is condoned.”

(verbatim reproduced)

9. The trial Court allowed I.A. No. 628 of 2024 in O.S. N