REDDY LAKSHMI KANTHAM Vs. V SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P., is filed against the order, dated 18-6-2003, passedby the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Salur, Vizayanagaram District, in LA. No.231 of 2002 in O.S. No.82 of 1999.

(2.) The respondent filed the suit against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note. On receiving the summons in the suit, the petitioner engaged an advocate and filed written statement. The trial of the suit commenced and P.W.I was examined. At that stage, the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings. Hence, she was set ex parte, on 5-2-2001, and thereafter, an ex parte decree was passed, on 13-2-2001. Respondents also filed E.P. No.12 of 2002. On receipt of notice in the E.P., the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 377 days, the petitioner filed LA. No.231 of 2002 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The same was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 70 years old, residing at Tanuku, in East Godavari District. Whereas the respondent filed the suit, obviously, at the behest of the son of the petitioner at Salur, on the basis of a forged and fabricated pronote. He contends that the petitioner hereself had to initiate several proceedings to claim maintenance against her son, and despite the same, as soon as she received summons in the suit, she engaged an advocate and filed written statement. He also contends that the non-participation of the petitioner in the proceedings in February, 2001, was on account of lack of information from the counsel for the petitioner. He ultimately contended that the delay ought to have been condoned.