V PRAKASH Vs. S LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.253 of 2005. It is an admitted fact of the petitioners that the suit was decreed exparte against the revision petitioners herein. Subsequently, the petitioners herein filed an application, under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 CPC to set aside the exparte decree passed by the court below on 27.12.2005. As there was a delay of 602 days in filing the application, the petitioners herein have filed an application in I.A.No.640 of 2008, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the unnumbered application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which is still pending according to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, there is no impugned order passed by the court below for preferring this Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the Interlocutory Application, seeking an order to set aside the exparte decree, dated 27.12.2005 is still pending, that is why the petitioners/defendants have come forward with this petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid application with the delay of 602 days and the applications are yet to be decided by the court below. As the petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the unnumbered application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC are said to be pending before the trial court, the petitioners / defendants could have approached only the court below for the disposal of the applications and they cannot move this Court directly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking supervisory power over the subordinate court, without any impugned order passed by the court below.