(1.) Aggrieved by the orders of the District Judge, Chittoor passed in CMA No. 14 of 2001 wherein the learned Judge set aside the orders dated 11.10.1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor in LA No.625 of 1992 in OS No.32 of 1983, the present CRP is filed.
(2.) As the Respondent Counsel Sri V. Vidyasagar strenuously argued this matter. I am forced to pronounce a detailed order on his contentions, otherwise the revision petition would have been allowed with a few words.
(3.) The factual background of this case is that the petitioner filed OS.No.32 of 1983 against the respondents i.e., B. Munemma and B. Venkatadri Naidu, the Son and the Mother, by showing them as D.I and D.2 for relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 7.5.1982. In the suit one Sri R.S.V. Narasimha Raju along with two other advocates Mr. V. Suresh Babu and Mr. K. S. Gopalakrishna appeared for both the defendants. I understand two different written statements were filed on behalf of both the respondents herein but subsequently the suit was decreed ex parte on 23.4.1985. The petitioner i.e., the defendant No.2 thereafter filed two IAs. One is LA No.517 of 1985 for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree along with another application for the purpose. But the respondent did not press for the disposal of these applications. Supply this fact on 8.7.1992 i.e., after seven years the respondent filed another application for condonation of delay is filed and that application was allowed by order dated 6.9.1996 in the following words "that the petitioner do deposit the suit costs and get ready for cross-examination of PW1 on 17.9.1996 failing which this petition stands dismissed". Having failed to comply with the order and obtained two adjournments. Thereafter she deposited the amount discretely on 25.9.1996. Subsequently the LA. for setting aside the ex parte decree was numbered as LA No.625 of 1992. Even after condonation of the delay in filing the application, the respondent did not evince any interest to get the IA No.625/ 92 disposed of. In fact, the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, while allowing the application for condonation of delay on payment of suit costs on 6.9.1996 directed the respondent to get ready to cross-examine the plaintiff on 17.9.1996 with a default clause observed that the respondent has not evinced any interest in disposal of the application. It is useful to extract the order of the Sub-Judge, which is as follows: "On 25.9.1996 the 1st respondent plaintiff filed a memo requesting the Court to consider the conduct of the parties and to record on the docket the consequential order in pursuance of the failure of the petitioner to comply the conditions imposed by the Court on 6.9.1996. The 2nd respondent/defendant has filed some objections on the memo and in my opinion, they are all irrelevant. The 2nd respondent was enlightening the Court on its power of enlargement under Sections 148 and 151 of CPC. / am at a loss to understand the suspicious conduct of the petitioner to keep silent all these days subsequent to the conditional order dated 6.9.1996. It is at the instance of the petitioner/ 1st defendant, the petition is filed and for her benefit the order dated 6.9.1996 has been passed. There is absolutely no reason for the petitioner to keep silent without complying the order dated 6.9.1996. So far no application has been filed by the petitioner or the 2nd respondent for enlargement of the time for the deposit of the suit costs. "