K K MOHAN RAO Vs. NARRA RANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two CRPs., are connected with each other. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

(2.) The petitioner filed O.S. No.53 of 2000 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent for recovery of a sum of about Rs.6,00,000/-. The respondent was served with summons on 1-3-2000. Thereafter, he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 03-11-2000. The petitioner filed E.P. No.148 of 2002 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. When the notice was served upon the respondent, in the E.P., he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 708 days in filing the application, he filed I.A. No.3395 of 2002, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court condoned the delay and allowed I.A.No.3395 of 2002, through its order, dated 13-6-2003. Consequently, the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, was numbered as I.A. No.1706 of 2003. It was also allowed through order, dated 28-1-2004. C.R.P. No.1021 of .2004 is filed against the order in LA. No.3395 of 2002, and C.R.P. No.1583 of 2004 is filed against the order in I.A. No.1706 of 2003.

(3.) Sri P. Gopal Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was indifferent, at every stage, in repayment of the amount, and in responding to the demands made by the petitioner. He submits that the respondent did not reply even after receiving the notice. He contends that though summons in the suit were served upon him, on 1-3-2000, he has not chosen to file written statement or to appear before the Court, and that the trial Court was left with no alternative, except to pass an ex parte decree. He submits that there was hardly any explanation, worth its name, in the affidavit filed in support of the LA. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.