G.LINGAMMA Vs. P.VIVEKANANDA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dtd. 22/4/2016 in I.A.No.377 of 2011 in O.S.No.94 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4 under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act read with Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'CPC') seeking to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, was dismissed.

(2.) Heard Mr. V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel, representing Mr. V.Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Narashima Chari, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

(3.) The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.94 of 2010 against respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendants 1 to 3 and revision petitioner herein/defendant No.4 for partition of the suit schedule properties. Suit summons were served on defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the summons against defendant No.4 were returned unserved, as refused. Thereafter, ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 20/12/2010. Respondent No.1 filed an application for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner in the final decree petition. Immediately, the revision petitioner filed application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree along with an application in 1.A.No.377 of 2011 to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Respondent No.1 herein resisted the same by filing counter affidavit denying the allegations. On a consideration of the material on record, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.377 of 2011 vide orders dtd. 22/4/2016 stating that the revision petitioner failed to explain proper and sufficient cause to condone the delay of 235 days . Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.