THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2037 of 2025

O R D E R

This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellandu in I.A.No.136 of 2024 in O.S.No.92 of 2023, dated 26.04.2025, whereby the petition seeking condonation of delay of 251 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated

14.02.2024 was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri R.R.Kalyan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent filed a suit vide O.S.No.92 of 2023, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.4,86,000/- against the petitioner before the trial Court and the learned Magistrate passed an ex-parte decree on 14.02.2024, though the petitioner had not received the summons. He further submitted that the trial Court issued summons on 18.01.2024, wherein it was mentioned that the suit was posted to 02.02.2024 and the petitioner was directed to file a written statement within 30 days from the receipt of the summons. However, even before the expiry of the said period, the trial Court passed the ex-parte decree, which is non est in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioner, upon coming to know about the passing of the ex-parte decree, immediately filed an application seeking to set aside the same. Along with the said application, he also filed an application vide I.A.No.136 of 2024, seeking condonation of 251 days delay in presenting the petition to set aside the decree. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, dismissed the application. The impugned order passed by the Court below is contrary to law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the Court below issued summons through the Court process server, who served the summons and obtained the petitioner’s signature as proof of service. Inspite of the service of summons, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and allowed the trial Court to pass the decree ex-parte. Pursuant to the decree dated 14.02.2024, the respondent filed an Execution Petition and only after receiving notice in the execution proceedings the petitioner filed an application seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree, along with an application for condonation of an abnormal delay of 251 days, without assigning any reasons. The trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner after giving cogent reasons. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the respondent filed a suit vide O.S.No.92 of 2023 for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,86,000/- before the trial Court, against the petitioner based on a promissory note. In the said suit, the trial Court issued summons to the petitioner on 18.01.2024 and posted the suit to 02.02.2024. The petitioner did not appear on 02.02.2024. Due to the non-appearance of the petitioner, the trial Court made the petitioner ex-

parte and on 14.02.2024 passed an ex-parte decree.

6. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the trial Court has given that 30 days time to the petitioner for filing written statement from the date of receipt of the summons. The said period was set to expire on 22.02.2024. However, the Court below even before the expiry of the said period, passed the ex-parte decree on 14.02.2024. Upon perusal of copy of the suit summon, it is revealed that the Court below had issued summons in the suit on 18.01.2024, directing the petitioner to appear on 02.02.2024 either in person or through counsel. Despite receipt of the summons, the petitioner had failed to appear on the above said date and due to his non-appea