STATE OF A P Vs. GANTA KANAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order, dated 23-7-2003, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in I. A. No. 610 of 2003 in O. S. No. 105 of 1992, whereunder and whereby the learned Judge condoned the delay of 1230 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 15-11-1999, is now sought to be assailed in the instant revision petition.

(2.) THE suit, O. S. No. 105 of 1992, was filed for partition by the plaintiff-revision petitioner claiming himself to be the adopted son of the late husband of the defendant-respondent herein. The defendant in the suit was set ex parte for her default in filing written statement. Therefore, she filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 15-11-1999 accompanied by I. A. No. 610 of 2003 for condoning the delay of 1230 days occasioned in having filed such application. The grounds set forth inter alia in the petition appear to be that the plaintiff was never adopted by her husband and that after the demise of her husband, she filed O. P. No. 842 of 1985 seeking succession certificate and the plaintiff having not come forward and raised any objections in the O. P. , the succession certificate was granted to her and that the plaintiff taking advantage of her illiteracy and to grab the properties left behind by her husband, filed the frivolous suit and that the plaintiff himself remained ex parte in the suit, which was dismissed for default on 6-7-1993 and in view of the same, she kept quiet and that taking advantage of her innocence, without her knowledge, the plaintiff got the suit restored after six years and the petitioner could not contact her Counsel to give instructions to proceed with the case as there was none to look after her. Therefore, an ex parte decree was passed against her and there was sufficient cause for her to condone the delay.

(3.) THAT application was resisted by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was deliberately remained absent in the suit and therefore an ex parte decree was passed and that when he filed a final decree petition in I. A. No. 59 of 2003 and when notice was served upon her in the month of January, 2003, she waited for a longtime and filed the present application on 30-4-2003. Thus, there was delay of three months even after the service of notice in I. A. No. 59 of 2003 and that she should explain each day's delay and the delay being 1230 days should not be condoned. Under the impugned order, the learned Judge allowed the petition on payment of costs of Rs. 1,500/ -.