HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.894 of 2025

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

10.02.2025 in I.A.No.696 of 2024 in O.S.No.5499 of 2022, passed by the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 41 days in filing application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.07.2024 in OS.No.5499 of 2022.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the material available on record.

3. The revision petitioner is defendant and respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit before the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the trial Court, vide impugned order, dismissed the application without properly appreciating the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condonation of delay; that since the delay is very meagre i.e., only 41 days, the trial Court erred in not taking a liberal view and condoning the same and as such, the impugned order is unsustainable and the same requires to be interfered with by this Court.

4.1. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his contention that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to adopt a liberal view, relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ummer Vs. Pottengal Subida and others, 2018(3) ALD 30 (SC) and Robin Thapa Vs. Rohit Dora, (2019) 7 SCC 359

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that earlier, the revision petitioner was set ex parte on 07.06.2023, however, on an application vide IA.No.346 of 2023 filed by him under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, the ex parte order was set aside subject to filing of written statement by the revision petitioner by 06.10.2023. He further submitted that as the revision petitioner did not comply with the said conditional order, he was again set ex parte on 06.11.2023 and ultimately, the suit was decreed ex parte on 01.07.2024 and all these facts show that petitioner was not

diligent in pursuing the matter. He further submitted that the reasons offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree are not plausible and the petitioner is only trying to drag on the proceedings. He further submitted that trial Court, on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly dismissed the application vide impugned order and in the present Revision no grounds are made out to interfere with the same and as such, the Revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. Apropos the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has scrupulously gone through the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner and also the counter filed by the respondent before the trial Court. In the affidavit, the petitioner has thrown the blame on the earlier counsel engaged by him in not filing the written statement, though his signatures were taken on the same, within the time granted by the trial Court. Except the self assertion of the petitioner that his earlier counsel has suffered stroke and was bed ridden and as such, he was not informed about the status of the case, he did not choose to file any medical record to prove the said fact.

7. Perusal of the record discloses that the revision petitioner was aware of the conditional order passed by the trial Court to file written statement by 06.11.2023, however, he did not choose to verify or know as to the order passed by the trial Court on 06.11.2023 and pursue the matter by knowing the status of the case. The case of the revision petitioner that as his earlier counsel suffered heart stroke and was bed ridden, as such, he was not informed about the status of the suit cannot be believed as no medical record was filed along with the application-IA.No.696 of