IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4551 OF 2025 Date: 13.03.2026 Between:

M/s. J.C. Constructions and two others ...Petitioners AND Sri Seetha Ramanjaneya Finance ...Respondent

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in I.A. No. 19 of 2024 in O.S. No. 23 of 2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 2308 days in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition briefly stated as under:-

2.1. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S. No. 23 of 2015 for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,40,000/- with future interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization, basing on the joint promissory note executed by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The said suit was decreed on 12.11.2018 against the petitioners with costs, directing the petitioners to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and subsequently @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The respondent filed E.P. No. 95 of 2023 on 26.09.2023. While the said E.P. was pending, the petitioners filed an application vide I.A. No. 19 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 2308 days in filing the application to set aside the decree. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application on 19.03.2025. Hence, the present revision.

3. Heard P.Kasi Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not receive the suit summons and that the learned trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 12.11.2018. The petitioners came to know about the same only after receiving notices in the E.P. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and, along with the said application, also filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The learned trial Court, without properly considering the contentions of the petitioners, dismissed the said application erroneously only on the ground that the petitioners had not explained the delay on a day-to-day basis. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners refused to receive the suit summons and, as a result, the suit was proceeded with ex parte. The learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit on merits on 12.11.2018, and the said decree has become final. The petitioners subsequently filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree after an inordinate delay of 2308 days, without assigning any reasons, much less valid reasons. The learned trial Court rightly dismissed the said application. He further submitted that even pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court on 19.12.2025, the petitioners have not complied with the conditional order and have not deposited one-third of the decretal amount. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the present Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 and the principle laid down by this Court in Kodiganti Jagapathi Reddy v. Kodiganti Bhaskar Reddy, 2022 (6) ALD 470 (TS)

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of an amount based