POLEPALLE SANKARAYANARAYANA CHETTY Vs. K SUNDARA RAJULU CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the order in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1999 dated:19-3-1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle confirming the order in I.A. No. 1211 of 1998 in O.S. No. 306 of 1998 dated:18-1-1999 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. I.A.No. 1211 of 1998 was filed to set aside the ex parte decree dated:21-9-1998 passed against him.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioner is that he did not receive the letter written by his Advocate about the date of hearing of the suit, as he had shifted his residence and on the date i.e., 16-9-1998, as he was not present, his counsel reported not ready and subsequent thereto he was set ex parte and accordingly an ex parte decree was passed. Therefore, the present interlocutory application was filed to set aside the ex parte decree. It is his further case that he is having good defence in the suit and if the decree is not set aside, he will be put to serious loss. He had also taken a stand that the suit was settled out of the court and, in fact, the respondent, had executed a receipt dated:23-7-1997 in his favour.

(3.) The respondent had filed a detailed counter denying all the allegations. The grievance of the respondent is that with a view to delay the proceedings only intentionally the revision petitioner has been adopting these tactics. The court of the first instance after hearing both the parties had dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte decree and aggrieved by the same, CMA. No. 1 of 1999 was filed on the file of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.