SEKAR REDDY Vs. JAYARAMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 5.12.2006 passed in I.A.No.1229 of 2004 in O.S.No,58 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri. This civil revision petition has been projected by the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants as against the order dated 05.12.2006 in I.A.No.1229 of 2004 in O.S.No,58 of 1987 passed by the learned District Munsif, Ponneri in rejecting the application filed for condonation of delay of 357 days as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.1229 of 2004, has inter alia opined that the contentions of the petitioners have been disproved by the evidence of R.W.1 and even after the evidence of R.W.1, the petitioners have not made any Endeavour to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their side and even by the averments in the petition only the fifth petitioner has gone to Nagpur and it is not the case of the fifth petitioner that the other petitioners have been disabled on any account from continuing to defend the suit in the absence of the fifth petitioner and in fact, there is also no evidence as to why the other petitioners have not appeared to contest the suit and has resultantly dismissed the petition with costs.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court in I.A.No.1229 of 2004 an affidavit has been filed by the fifth revision petitioner wherein it is inter alia mentioned that the case has been posted in the list on 05.8.2003 and that he has been out of station for the past one year and he has been in the Nagpur to do the cloth business and therefore, in his absence he has called absent and set exparte and further a decree has also been passed against the petitioners and later on 10.4.2004 through an Advocate a legal notice has been issued by the respondents and only after receipt of the same he has come to know that an exparte decree has been passed on 05.8.2003 and soon after he returned to his native place and when he has contacted his counsel, he has come to know of the facts of the case and therefore, he has filed an application to set aside the exparte decree and also an application to condone the delay in filing an application.