APHC010472962023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2467/2023 Between: 1. BOGGAVARAPU PADMA NARAYANA, S/O. VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, EMPLOYEE IN STATE BANK OF INDIA R/O. VINJAMUR, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MALLU VENKATA REDDY, S/o. Chinnapa Reddy, aged about 38 years, R/o. Baazar Street, Kaluvoi Village, Kaluvoi mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to petitioner herein beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision filed under cpc 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.19 of 2023 in O.S.No.247 of 2019, dated 24-07-2023 by the Honourable Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MARELLA RADHA The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2467/2023 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.19 of 2023 in O.S.No.247 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.247 of 2019. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of money along with interest and costs. Initially, the suit was filed as O.S.No.176 of 2016 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur. Subsequently, upon establishment of the Court at Atmakur and on the point of jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, and was renumbered as O.S.No.247 of 2019. (b) It is the further contention of the petitioner/defendant that he did not receive any summons from the Court and came to know about the passing of the ex parte decree only on 21.10.2022, when he received a salary attachment warrant. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 58 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 21.01.2022. The said application was dismissed by order dated 24.07.2023. 3 (c) It is contended that there were no willful laches on the part of the petitioner/defendant in causing the delay. Challenging the order dated 24.07.2023, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr. Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It is the case of the petitioner/defendant that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money was decreed ex parte on 21.01.2022 and that he did not receive any summons from the Court. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit proceedings and, despite being given sufficient opportunities, failed to appear, resulting in the suit being decreed ex parte. 5. As seen from the impugned order, notices were issued to both parties on 24.01.2020 and the matter was posted to 27.03.2020. Thereafter, both parties remained absent and were called absent until 09.09.2021. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff engaged a new counsel on 27.10.2021, filed the chief-examination affidavit of PW-1, and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. Despite several opportunities being granted, the petitioner/defendant did not appear to cross-examine PW-1, and therefore, the cross-examination of PW-1 was closed as ‘nil’ on 14.12.2021. The plaintiff reported no further evidence. When the matter was posted for the defendant’s evidence, the petitioner/defendant did not adduce any evidence. 4 6. However, it is evident from the record that after issuance of notices on 24.01.2020, both parties remained absent until 09.09.2021. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff engaged a new counsel and proceeded with the matter. 7. The specific contention of the petitioner/defendant is that the delay is only 58 days caused due to personal tragedies, namely, the suicide of his son and mental depression of his wife. In such circumstances, it is a settled principle of law that courts are required to adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays when sufficient cause is shown, so as to afford an opportunity to the parties to contest the matter on merits. 8. In the light of the above circumstances, considering that the delay is only 58 days, this Court is inclined to condone the same, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. 9. Accordingly, this Court finds that the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.19 of 2023 in O.S.No.247 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2023. Consequently, I.A.No.19 of 2023 in O.S.No.247 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, stands allowed, subject to the petitioner/defendant paying costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to respondent/plaintiff. No order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 04.12.2025. ARB 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Civil Revision Petition No.2467 of 2023 Date: 04.12.2025 ARB