IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Dated:05.01.2026 Between:

Banda Komuramma …Petitioner And Gandla Venkanna and another.

…Respondents

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated

25.09.2025, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli in I.A.No.361 of 2025, whereunder and whereby the application filed by petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 99 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 12.02.2025, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri V.Ramchander Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. The revision petitioner is defendant No.1, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.2 in the suit.

4. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

5. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of agreement of sale deed, dated 15.08.2020, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-. The defendants entered appearance and engaged one Sri Sanda Mogili, Advocate, to prosecute the case. However, subsequently, taking into account the fact the defendants failed to file their written statement in spite of granting several adjournments, they were set ex parte, and after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the trial Court adjudicated the suit and passed ex parte decree, dated 12.02.2025. Seeking to condone the delay in filing application to set aside the ex parte decree, defendant No.1 filed IA.No.361 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present Revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 contended that the counsel engaged by the defendants did not give any information to defendant No.1 with regard to the stage of the case and has also not filed written statement on their behalf and hence, they were set ex parte and ultimately, the trial Court passed ex parte decree on 12.02.2025. He further contended that only after receiving notices in E.P.No.31 of 2025, defendant No.1 came to know that her counsel did not file written statement and the suit was decreed ex parte and the same was only due to miscommunication between defendant No.1 and her counsel and there is no fault or negligence on the part of the defendants. Therefore, he prayed to take a lenient view and allow this Revision, thereby condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree.

7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.1 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.Prabhakar Rao and anr vs. Mahipal Reddy and anr, 2025 (4) ALD 32 (SC)

8. In the said case, the High Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case therein, held that there is justifiable reason

to condone the delay and accordingly, condoned the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the said finding of the High Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted that the application in IA.No.361 of 2025 was filed on false and frivolous grounds. He further submitted that though the defendants engaged an advocate, they did not file written statement intentionally to drag the matter and hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He further submitted that no grounds are made out in this Revision warranting interference with the impugned order and hence, prayed to dismiss the Revision.

10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramk