APHC010565632024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 272/2025 BETWEEN: Ari Suryanarayana Rao, ...Petitioner AND Mannam Nagendramma ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.141 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- basing on the promissory note, dated 19.05.1998. Despite service of summon personally through Court, the defendant was called absent and he was set ex parte on 19.07.2001. Thereby, considering the evidence adduced by the respondent/plaintiff, the said suit was decreed on 30.07.2001 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/ defendant and ordered to pay an amount of Rs.68,000/- with subsequent interest and costs. 2. The Interlocutory Application No.156 of 2010 was filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 2988 days in filing application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC and I.A. No.157 of 2010 was filed to set aside ex parte decree and both the I.A.s were dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 07.05.2018. Aggrieved by the orders in I.A. No.156 of 2010 and I.A. No.157 of 2010, the petitioner herein preferred CMA No.1 of 2018 and CMA No.2 of 2018 respectively on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Addanki. Both the Civil Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court. 3 3. Aggrieved by the order in CMA No.1 of 2018, the petitioner /defendant filed C.R.P. No.310 of 2025. The said C.R.P. was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2025 observing that against dismissal of Section 5 of Limitation Act, no appeal is maintainable before the lower appellate Court under Section 104 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 Cr.P.C.as the order under Section 5 of Limitation Act does not fall under the category of the decree as defined under Section 2(2) of CPC relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4. Now, the present C.R.P. No.272 of 2025 is filed to set aside the order passed in I.A. No.157 of 2010 in O.S. No.141 of 2001. As this court has dismissed the CRP filed against the order in CMA 1 of 2018 on the ground that no appeal is maintainable against dismissal under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the present Civil Revision petition has rendered infructuous in view of the dismissal order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.310 of 2025 preferred against C.M.A. No.1 of 2018. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 21.03.2025 Harin 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 135 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 272 of 2025 Date : 21.03.2025 Harin