C RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. S ASWARTHANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the respondent in I. A.No. 10/91 in A.T.C, 1 /89 on the file of the Special Officer-cum-District Munsif, Kamalapuram, is challenging the order dated 7-4-1992 in this revision petition.

(2.) The petitioner filed A.T.C. 1/89 on the file of the Special Officer-cum- District Munsif, Kamaiapuram for declaration that he is the cultivating tenant and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein, from interfering with his possession over the petition-schedule land. The respondents engaged an advocate, but since the Advocate reported no instructions, the petition was allowed ex parte on 6-9-1991. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. As there was a delay of one year and nine months in filing the said application, they have also filed an application LA. 10/91 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 6-9-1991. The contention of the respondents herein, in the said application is that since the petitioner approached them for settlement and as the mediators settled the matter, the petitioner agreed to surrender the land and give possession of the land to the 3rd respondent within two years and that he had agreed to withdraw A.T.C. 1/89. Therefore, their advocate reported no instructions in view of the said settlement. But, however, the petitioner did not withdraw A.T.C. as agreed, but obtained ex parte order on 6-9-1991. Therefore, the said order should be set aside. Since they came to know about the said order only when they asked the petitioner for possessionof the land, the petitioner showed the order of the Court and as such, they are not aware of the said order earlier and so, the delay that occurred in view of the above circumstances, should be condoned. However, the Petitioner had denied the said allegations. The learned Special Officer allowed the application by his order dated 7-4-1992 on payment of costs of Rs. 50/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the above revision petition.

(3.) Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted before me that the learned Special Officer has no power to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte order in view of the fact that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has no application to the proceedings before the Special Officer under the A.P. Tenancy Act. He also further contended that in fact, the impugned order is not an ex parte order but, it is an order on merits and therefore, the only remedy open to the respondents is to file an appeal, but not an application to set aside the said order. Relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in K. Venkaiah vs. K.V. Rao, the learned Counsel contends that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act i.e., Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and that the authorities under the Act have no power to extend the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal or revision before the authorities under the said Act who are Tahsildar, Tribunal, Collector and the Board of Revenue.