M RAMANJULU Vs. SAPPARAJU VENKATA SESHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 22.10.2010 in CFR (IA) No. 3165 of 2010 in OS No. 338 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 21.7.2010 was rejected, as not maintainable. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

(2.) The respondent herein filed suit against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 97,245/- due under a pronote dated 12.3.2008 said to have been executed by the petitioner herein for borrowal of Rs. 70,000/-. The petitioner herein filed written statement denying the borrowal and execution of the suit pronote and contending that the defendant borrowed only Rs. 10,000/-from the plaintiff in October 2000 and at the instance of the plaintiff, he signed on a blank pronote and that the suit pronote was fabricated by the plaintiff as if he borrowed Rs. 70,000/- on 12.3.2008. The trial Court framed necessary issues. During the course of trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the attestor of the suit pronote was examined as PW2 and Exs. A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the defendant. After hearing both sides, the learned Junior Civil Judge by judgment dated 21.7.2010 decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 97,245/-. Thereafter, the defendant filed the present un-numbered application CFR No. 3165 of 2010 on 18.8.2010 under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC praying the Court to set aside the ex parte decree dated 21.7.2010.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner stated that after closure of the plaintiffs evidence, the defendant was also examined as DW1 and the matter was coming up for cross-examination and it stood posted to 15.7.2010 as last chance and on that day as there was no representation on his behalf, the evidence was closed and the matter was posted to 16.7.2010 for arguments and thereafter on 21.7.2010 the judgment was pronounced. It is further pleaded by the petitioner as follows: "I submit I am suffering ill health and could not attend for my Counsel and informed the same to represent not ready. But the concerned advocate did not represent the same. Now I am under the impression till today and two days back, when I approached my Counsel he informed the same".