D MANEMMA Vs. V ANANTHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S. No. 291/1988 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, filed these two revision petitions. They have filed C.R.P. No. 1874/2012 against order dated 17-3-2011 in I.A. No. 1251/2009 and C.R.P. No. 1610/2012 against order dated 18-1-2012 in I.A. No. 564/2011 in the above mentioned suit. The brief facts leading to the filing of these Civil Revision Petitions are mentioned hereunder:

(2.) Since both these Civil Revision Petitions are intricately connected with each other, they are heard together and being disposed of by this Common Order.

(3.) At the hearing, Sri Pasam Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, submitted that the lower Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in condoning the enormous delay in filing the application for setting aside the exparte order and that it has committed an equally serious error of jurisdiction in setting aside the default order without there being any reasonable and sufficient cause. He further submitted that even though discretion is vested in the Court to condone the delay, such discretion has to be exercised in a sound and rational manner and that the grounds on which the condonation of delay was sought and exparte order was sought to be set-aside are wholly inadequate to condone such a huge delay and set-aside the exparte order. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel mainly placed reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A. Murali Madhava Rao, 2009 3 ALT 637 and that of a learned single Judge in Shaik Rahima Begum Vs. Kadiri Narayanamma, 1996 4 ALT 401. He has also placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court in M.R. Venkatarama Aiyer Vs. Natraja Aiyer, 1913 24 MadLJ 235.