ABDUL JABBAR Vs. S N A NAZARATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner assails the order dated 08-02-1999 passed by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.1013 of 1997 in O.S.No. 4297 of 1989. He filed the petition in I.A.No.1013 of 1997 under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1198 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree dated 09-11-1993 passed in O.S.No.4297 of 1989. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition he mentioned inter alia that the suit O.S.No.4297 of 1989 was filed by the respondent herein for perpetual injunction. He put in his appearance through his counsel Sri Rajiv Indani and the matter was coming up for filing the Written statement. Unfortunately his counsel did not attend the matter and therefore he was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 09-11-1993. He is a businessman staying away from Hyderabad and as such he did not know the exact procedure to be followed before the court. He came to know about the exparte decree in 1995 and therefore he filed an application dated 18-11-1995 seeking to set aside the exparte decree through his general power of attorney holder in I.A.No. 2116 of 1995. The court below refused to grant permission to his agent under Sec. 32 of the Civil Rules of practice on some technical grounds, and therefore, that application was ultimately rejected on 22-12-1995. The petitioner came to know of the same on 9-10-1996 and filed the present petition.

(2.) The respondents herein resisted that application by filing a counter on the premise that there had been deliberate delay in filing the present petition and as the decree was implemented by filing an execution petition, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) At the time of enquiry, one Mr.Syed Abdullah Rauf the general power of attorney holder of the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. None was examined on the side of the respondent. No documents were filed on either side. The court below upon considering the evidence, dismissed the petition holding that there had been latches on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the suit with due diligence and he could not show sufficient cause for condoning the delay.