BATHULA VENKATAMMA Vs. VAGGU MAHENDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order made in I.A.No. 662 of 1996 in O.S.No. 128 of 1996 (sic. 1994) on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction relating to the plaint-schedule property. An ex parte decree was passed on 10-6-1996 and the revision petitioner-1st defendant filed I.A.No. 662 of 1996 to condone the delay of 150 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') on the ground that the revision petitioner was suffering from Epilepsy and a medical certificate was also enclosed in this regard to explain sufficient cause. The application was resisted by the respondents-plaintiffs and ultimately the Court below had dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-1st defendant filed the present Revision.

(2.) Sri Meherchand Nori, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had submitted that the Court below had adopted technical approach in dealing with the application, though sufficient cause had been explained. The learned Counsel had also drawn my attention to the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the material placed before the Court below including the medical certificate. Learned Counsel further contended that the nature of the suit itself is for declaration of title and mandatory injunction and though the delay was explained properly, the Court below had dismissed the application mainly on two grounds, the conduct of the party and also on the ground that the other defendants, who are on record, should have taken care to see that the matter was not decided ex parte. Learned Counsel had also explained that the 1st defendant is in no way concerned with the other defendants and hence the reasoning of the Court below on this aspect is erroneous. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and others wherein the apex Court had observed that in matters of this nature, the approach of the Courts should be liberal and not technical.

(3.) Sri Sampath Prabhakar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents- plaintiffs had strenuously contended that the very conduct of the parties clearly goes to show that the revision petitioner is only bent upon prolonging the matter and absolutely there are no bona fides. Learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the relevant portion of the order of the Court below which is extracted as under: