1 APHC010390282022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1832/2022 Between: 1. NAMALA NAGA PULLAIAH, S/O.NAMALA NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.PETNIKOTA VILLAGE, KOLIMIGUNDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BANDARU VENKATA RAMAIAH, S/o.Narayana, Aged about 59 years, Occ.Business, R/o.Sanjamala Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MD SHARFUDDIN The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1832/2022 O R D E R: 1. The instant Civil Revision Petition (for short C.R.P.,) has been preferred against an Order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District, in I.A.No.62 of 2021 in O.S.No.232 of 2014. 2. Brief facts of the matter are that – the present Petitioner was the Defendant in a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.232 of 2014. The Suit was decreed ex- parte on 22.11.2019. The Petitioner being the Defendant, filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short C.P.C.,) to set aside the ex-parte decree, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 359 days in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C.,. By a common Order, the learned Court below has dismissed both the applications, against which, the instant C.R.P., has been preferred. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and improper. She further submits that the Petitioner being the Defendant appeared in the suit and placed Vakalatnama to his learned Advocate. He was under the impression that the learned Counsel shall take steps. Suddenly, he received a notice from the Mandal Tahsildar Office, Koilakuntla on 21.12.2020 and on perusal of the notice 3 he came to know that the Suit was Decreed ex-parte. Immediately, he tried to contact with his Counsel and came to know that he has already been expired. Due to illiteracy and lack of knowledge, he could not properly contest the Suit and it was decreed ex-parte. She further submits that due to COVID pandemic, he could not take proper steps and could not contact with his counsel that is why the delay of 359 days was occurred. i. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the learned Court below without appreciating the facts and circumstances of this matter has dismissed both the applications. The impugned Order is not a speaking Order, thus, it requires to be set aside. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there are good merits in the instant Suit, the ex-parte decree is palpably illegal in nature thus the same is required to be set aside. ii. In support of her contention, she cited a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1969) 2 SCC 770 : 1969 SCC OnLine SC 306, LALA MATA DIN .V- A.NARAYANAN, Civil Appeals Nos.2410 and 2411 of 1996, decided on 25.08.1969 and also cited another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 3 SCC 761, HARI SHANKAR RASTOGI .V- SHAM MANOHAR AND OTHERS, in Civil Appeal No.1787 of 2005, decided on 16.03.2005. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the impugned Order. 5. It appears that the learned Court below in deciding the applications has taken note of the fact that the application was filed with delay of 359 days. 4 The learned Court below has also noted that the matter was posted for Written Statement in the years 2014-2015 and finally, the suit was set ex-parte on 24.04.2015. Finally, the suit was decreed ex-parte on 20.11.2019. 6. The learned Court below is of the view that no explanation was given by the Petitioner/Defendant for the past four (04) years i.e., from 2014 to 2019. However, after passing the ex-parte Decree, the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was also filed with delay of 359 days. It is noted by the learned Court below that no reasons were mentioned in the affidavit for condonation of delay. It is also noted by the learned Court below that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has taken adjournments for the years 2014 – 2015 to file Written Statement. Finally, the suit was set ex-parte on 24.04.2015. The learned Court below has also taken note that the present Petitioner has also filed another Suit vide O.S.No.80 of 2021, only to strengthen that suit, the application for setting aside ex-parte Decree was filed. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the application by the Petitioner before the learned Court below he has mentioned that he had handed over the Vakalatnama to his learned Counsel after receipt of Suit summons. Thereafter he received a notice from the Mandal Tahsildar on 21.12.2020, he tried to contact with his learned Counsel and he came to know that such learned Counsel was passed away. It has also been pleaded in the affidavit that due to COVID pandemic, the Petitioner could not take steps within time. 5 8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also after perusing the affidavit placed by the Petitioner before the learned Court below, it appears to me that the reason assigned by the Petitioner for condonation of delay is that his Counsel was expired and could not take proper steps. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in LALA MATA DIN .V- A.NARAYANAN (supra) has observed that mistake of learned Counsel itself is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. In HARI SHANKAR RASTOGI .V- SHAM MANOHAR AND OTHERS (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided a matter which factually different to the facts of this case. 10. It appears from the affidavit that the Petitioner for the first time handed over a Vakalatnama to his learned Counsel, thereafter he could not contact with his learned Counsel. The learned Counsel appointed by the present Petitioner has taken several adjournments before the learned Court below for two (02) long years, thereafter the matter was posted for ex-parte hearing due to non- filing of the Written Statement by Defendant. The conduct of the learned Advocate on record for the Petitioner before the learned Court below appears to be a good professional conduct and there is no any negligence on the part of learned Counsel. The Petitioner himself admitted that he has only handed over the Vakalatnama and thereafter had no any contact with his learned Counsel. In spite of that, the learned Advocate acted in diligent to save his client. Thus, his conduct cannot be taken as a mistake on the part of learned Counsel. 6 11. Another ground taken by the Petitioner for condonation of delay is that, there was COVID pandemic since the year 2020, so he could not take proper steps during that period. It appears from the record that the ex-parte decree was passed on 20.11.2019, the time for filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree within statutory period is 19.12.2019. COVID pandemic was started in the month of March, 2020. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo-motto petition has specified a particular date since March, 2020 to a particular date of in the year 2022. Thus, this case is not covered for that period. Time for filing ex- parte decree has already been expired prior to the starting of COVID pandemic. Thus, the Petitioner cannot take opportunity of the Order of Suo-motto proceedings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It further appears from the impugned Order that the learned Court below has taken note of the subsequent events and conduct of the present Petitioner who filed a specific suit vide O.S.No.80 of 2021 and only to strengthen that suit, the application for setting aside ex-parte Decree was filed. 12. The learned Court below had taken the view in paragraph 9 of the impugned Order. After perusing the entire impugned Order, it appears that the impugned Order suffers no illegality. The learned Court below has justifiably could not satisfied with the reason assigned by the Petitioner before him. It further appears that the affidavit placed by the present Petitioner before the learned Court below as well as the conduct of the Petitioner is not justifiably 7 deserves any leniency. Accordingly, I find no merit in the instant Civil Revision Petition to entertain and the same is devoid of merits. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, without costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:31.12.2025. 8 152 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1832 OF 2022 DATED:31.12.2025. KS