APHC010897222017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5971/2017 Between: Poosarla Sumitra ...PETITIONER AND Vunna Satyanarayana China Babu ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V S R ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G VENKATA REDDY 2 The Court made the following order: The present revision is filed aggrieved by the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in IA No.173/2016 in OS No.126/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit is filed to direct the respondent/defendant to pay an amount of Rs.7,60,990/- with subsequent interest from 26.04.2014. When the suit was coming up for filing written statement by the respondent, since the same was not filed, the Trail Court, by order dated 28.10.2014, was pleased to set ex parte the respondent and subsequently, the judgment and decree was passed on 31.08.2015. After coming to know about the decree passed by the trail Court, the respondent/defendant filed application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree with an application to condone the delay of 343 days in filing said application. The said application was resisted by the petitioner herein and upon hearing the parties, the trail Court by impugned order, allowed the application filed by the respondent/defendant 3 and condoned the delay of 343 days. While allowing the delay application, the trail Court directed the respondent/defendant to deposit the suit costs of Rs.22,533/- on or before 18.08.2017 by observing that, in the event of nonpayment of the said amount, the petition stands dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent. 4. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the respondent has got knowledge about the passing of ex parte decree dated 31.08.2015 in as much as the said decree was marked as Ex.P.6 on 28.04.2016 in CC No.180/2014 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chodavaram. The said case was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondent under Section 138 of N.I Act. Despite having knowledge, the respondent/defendant did not file the application within time. 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that, the counsel did not inform him about the order passed by the Trial Court. Immediately, the respondent instructed his counsel to file the present application and in the said process, 4 there occurred a delay of 343 days, which is neither willful nor wanton. Taking into consideration of the averments made in support of the application, the trail Court, while allowing the same, directed the respondent/defendant to pay the suit costs of Rs.22,533/-. In compliance of the order, the respondent/defendant also paid the costs. 6. The Trial Court, while allowing the application, protected the interest of the petitioner herein by directing the respondent to pay the suit costs. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the order of the trail Court, accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.31.01.2025 DSB 5 102 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.5971 of 2017 Date 31.01.2025 DSB