THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1668 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C.

by the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order, dated 15.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.292 of 2018 in O.S.No.19 of 2018 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”), wherein the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 42 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.19 of 2018 for grant of perpetual injunction in her favour against the revision petitioner and another restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit summons were issued and as the defendants therein did not chose to contest the said suit, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court granting perpetual injunction in favour of respondent No.1 herein and against the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 herein. The revision petitioner filed a petition to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed against her and also filed the I.A.No.292 of 2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 42 days in filing the said set aside petition.

3. Respondent No.1 filed counter stating that the petition is not maintainable as the revision petitioner is taking false pleas and filed fabricated documents.

4. Considering the reasons cited and disbelieving the version of the revision petitioner, the learned trial Court had dismissed the said application.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed on the following grounds:-

(i) that during the proceedings before the M.R.O. under Section

141 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 herein has confronted the ex parte judgment and decree passed in his favour and against the revision petitioner and respondent No.2, then she came to know about the same and immediately they engaged the counsel and on verification they noticed that they were set ex parte on 14.02.2018 and thereafter an ex parte judgment and decree was passed against them on

11.04.2018.

(ii) that no summons were received by the revision petitioner and admittedly the said summons were returned by the Process Server on the ground that the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 herein had refused to receive the summons and the same was denied by her.

(iii) that the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree was passed against them and as they did not receive the summons and that they came to know about the said decree only during the proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer.

(iv) that the learned trial Court did not consider the said reasons and dismissed the petition stating that the revision petitioner had not stated any reasons whatsoever for not filing the set aside petition in time, nor she has not shown any sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 42 days and the learned trial Court held that although the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that a petition to condone the delay has to be dealt with in a liberal manner, but the learned trial Court having not satisfied with the cause mentioned in the affidavit did not choose to condone the delay. 6. Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appeared for respondent No.1. No notice was served on respondent No.2 as the cause title itself shows that he is not a necessary party in the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has reiterated the grounds mentioned in the Civil Revision Petition. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the learned trial Court did not consider the reasons cited by the revision petitioner