R PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY Vs. APUROOPAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.22 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. They feel aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court, setting aside an ex parte decree.

(2.) The petitioners filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The 1st respondent is the mother of the 2nd respondent. They are residents of Hyderabad. Soon after they received summons in the suit, they filed a written statement. The suit was posted for trial on 3-12-1998. On the ground that the respondents did not attend the Court on 3-12-1998, the trial Court set them ex parte and posted the suit for ex parte evidence. On 7-12-1998, ex parte evidence of plaintiffs' was recorded and ultimately, an ex parte decree was passed.

(3.) The respondents-defendants filed I.A.No.43 of 1999 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree. The 2nd respondent filed an affidavit in support of the I.A. He stated that his mother is 78 years old and that she suffered from acute hypertension in the first week of December, 1998. It was also his case that he was the gerson to attend on his old mother and thereby could not attend the Court. The medical certificate issued by a local Doctor was also filed.