PADARAJU VIDYASAGAR Vs. SYNDICATE BANK MIRYALGUDA BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Syndicate Bank, filed O.S.No. 4 of 1993 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda for recovery of certain amount, against the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte on 30-12-1994. It filed E.P. No. 19 of 1999 for execution of decree and the same was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, and it was numbered as E.P.No. 171 of 2003.

(2.) On receipt of notice in the E.P., the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30-12-1994 in O.S. No. 4 of 1983. Since there was delay of 1867 days, he filed I. A.No. 65 of 2000 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The same was dismissed by the trial Court through its order dated 18-9-2002. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) In the Counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 35,000/- on 29-03-1990 as loan and since it was not paid, they filed the suit to recover the amount. It is stated that the address of the petitioner, which was furnished in the documents in the loan transaction was furnished in the plaint and when summons could not be served on the petitioner, substituted service was effected. The facts such as dismissal of E.P.No. 19 of 1999 for default, its restoration and subsequent transfer to Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir are also stated. It contends that the petitioner failed to explain the delay in filling application under Order 9 Rule 13, in particular the delay subsequent to receipt of summons in the E.P.