GUDIMALLI VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. CHUKKA SIVAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue is one and the same in both the CRPs, with the consent of both the counsels, this Court is passing common order.

(2.) C.R.P.No.3646 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners/ defendants against the order, dated 4.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.257 of 2018 in O.S.No.42 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. C.R.P.No.3645 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners/ defendants against the order, dated 4.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.258 of 2018 in O.S.No.42 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that both the petitioners are husband and wife and they are defendants in the suit in O.S.No.42 of 2017 filed by the respondent herein, for recovery of money based on the foot of promissory note. In the above suit, after receipt of summons, petitioners approached one J.S.Ganesh, Advocate at Tenali, who is said to be their relative. The said Advocate informed them that he will entrust the Vakalat to a Counsel at Mangalagiri and on that premise, petitioners kept quiet. Subsequently, petitioners received notice in E.P.No.250 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru and they came to know that exparte decree was passed in the above suit. Having come to know about the same, petitioners filed two I.As i.e., I.A.No.257 of 2018 seeking to condone the delay of 228 days from 9.7.2017 to 21.2.2018 in filing the petition under Order IX, Rule-13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC ') to set aside the exparte order and I.A.No.258 of 2018 seeking to set aside the exparte order, dated 8.6.2017, passed in O.S.No.42 of 2017. After considering the material on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed both the petitions, by orders, dated 4.09.2019.