BODDUPALLY CHINA VENKANNA Vs. EDULLA NARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.34 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, are the petitioners in this revision petition. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants in respect of the land admeasuring 0.37 gts. comprised in Sy.No.455 of Mondikanigudem village, hamlet of Palvai village of Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District. The suit was decreed on 7-9-2000. The petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. As there was a delay in filing the said application, they also filed I.A.No. 148 of 2001 praying the lower Court to condone the delay of 331 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court having dismissed I.A.No.148 of 2001, the petitioners filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code').

(2.) The trial Court having regard to the pleadings as well as contentions in LA. No. 148 of 2001, dismissed the LA. holding thus: A perusal of the affidavit of the petitioners clearly indicates that the petitioners did not assign any ground for the delay in filing petition to set aside ex parte decree much less any valid or cogent ground. The petitioners also failed to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contention about the alleged settlement of the case and the alleged promise of the respondent to withdraw the suit. Therefore, this petition deserves no consideration.

(3.) Learned Advocate, Smt. Neeraja, representing Sri M. Venkatarama Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application. She would also contend that while condoning the delay the lower Court should be liberal in the matter. She placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy.