K.HARISH REDDY Vs. V.VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2019 passed in I.A.No.886 of 2018 in O.S.No.445 of 2017 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, whereby, the application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant, under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC, to condone the delay of 378 days in filing the petition, under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC, to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30.08.2017, was dismissed.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would contend that summons was not served to the defendant in the Original Suit. Learned counsel produced a photocopy of the summons with an endorsement vide memo dated 06.11.2019 and contended that Process Server concerned has not followed the requirements under Order V Rule 9 of CPC read with Rule 77 of Civil Rules of Practice. The plaintiff ought not have identified the person in whose name summon was taken. Moreover, the Process Server ought not have allowed the plaintiff to identify the person in question, in fact there is no service of summons. When the revision petitioner/defendant received summons in the execution proceedings, he came to know about the passing of ex parte decree in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. Thus, delay in filing the subject application occurred. The Court below ought to have condoned the said delay. The impugned order passed by the Court below is erroneous and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.