(1.) On a reference made by the second respondent (Land Acquisition Officer) under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the reference Court granted time to the revision petitioner and first respondent to file their statements. Since the revision petitioner failed to file statements within the time granted, she was set ex parte and the case was posted for further hearing. Thereafter, she filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 187 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order against her, which was dismissed by the order under revision. Hence this revision.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the revision petitioner was undergoing treatment in a hospital at a different place, as disclosed from Ex.A1, it is clear that the revision petitioner has established sufficient cause for her non appearance earlier and so the order under revision is unsustainable. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is that the evidence of PW1 cannot be accepted or believed because she herself admitted that she had no knowledge whether she joined in a government hospital or a private hospital and cannot say in which street of Palakonda that hospital is situate and that she does not know the head of the hosplital, it is clear that Ex.A1 medical certificate is brought into existence for the purpose of this petition and since the evidence of R.Ws.l and 2 clearly establishes that the revision petitioner was not at Palakonda at any time, the Court below has rightly dismissed the petition and so the order under revision needs no interference.
(3.) The fact that the O.P. is still pending is not denied or disputed. Since the case is a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of CPC apply to those proceedings. So if statements of the claimants are not filed within the time granted, they would naturally be set exparte under rule 7 of order 9 CPC.