MATTI RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. BANDARU YEDUKONDALA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.C. Rangappa, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and Sri G.V.R. Choudhry, the learned Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioners as against an order passed in I.A.No. 2453 of 1999 in O.S.No. 118/98 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada dated 27-10-2000. The Revision Petitioners are the petitioners in I.A.No. 2453/99 and defendants in O.S. No. 118/98 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada. The application was filed in the Court below under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 43 days in filing an application to set aside ex parte decree so as to enable them to contest the suit in the interests of justice.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 14,200/- on the basis of a promissory note dated 15-11-1995. The affidavit in support of the application was sworn to by Sri L. Shankar Rao, Advocate, Gudivada, It is pertinent to note that none of the petitioners-defendants had sworn to any affidavit in support of the application. The Counsel had stated that the suit is of the year 1998 and he was under the impression that the Court would not take up the matter for trial and hence he was not present in the Court and had not represented the matter in Court on 22-7-1999 and further it was stated that he was engaged in the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court at Gudivada in a criminal matter and hence his absence on the particular day was not wilful. It was also stated in the affidavit that he came to know of the passing of ex parte decree only on 8-10-1999 when he referred the Court diary and in such circumstances he had not informed the date of adjournment to his clients and hence the relief of condonation of delay of 43 days in filing an application to set-aside ex parte decree was prayed for. The respondent had resisted the said application denying all the allegations made in the affidavit of Sri L. Shankar Rao, Advocate for petitioners and it was specifically stated that it is the duty of the party to note the dates of adjournments and to be present in Court even though the Advocate of the party is not present and the opinion of the deponent of the affidavit that the Court would not take up matters of the year 1998 cannot be said to be sustainable ground and there are no grounds, muchless valid grounds, for condoning the delay.