K VASUDEVREDDY Vs. B CHANDRAKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A.No. 352 of 2002 in O.S.No.1416 of 2000 filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of the delay of 191 days in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, was dismissed by the Court below by the order under revision on the ground that the delay is not properly explained. This revision is preferred questioning the said order. (2)The reason for the delay as stated in the affidavit of the revision petitioner is his 'being busy with official work'.Being 'busy with official work', without mentioning what he was doing during the Public Holidays, Second Saturdays and Sundays that were there in those 191 days cannot be said to be a proper explanation for the delay. (3)The order of the trial Court shows that in the suit filed in 2000, time was finally extended for filing Written Statement till 09.07.2001. Since on that day also Written Statement was not filed, revision petitioner was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed subsequently. Very significantly petitioner did not even allege that he is filing the Written Statement along with the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Even a very busy employee in an office with very busy official work would be free on at least one Sunday or Second Saturday in a month. So petitioner could have taken time out to contact his counsel and should have got the Written Statement prepared and filed it into Court at least along with the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. (4)Since petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 191 days, it means that the delay is more than 6 months. In six months there will be 24 Sundays and five if not six Second Saturdays. So, petitioner clearly had 29 free days on which he cannot be having any "official work" and he cannot be heard to say that he was 'busy with official work' unless and until he produces the office order of the head of his office showing that he was not permitted to avail the Sundays or Saturdays and was directed to work in the office.Significantly it is not even the case of the revision petitioner that he did not avail Casual Leave during the period of 191 days. (5)In view thereof the trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 191 days cannot be said to be erroneous and so I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and hence the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.