APHC010059322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 347/2025 Between: Pamarthi Venkaiah, ...PETITIONER AND Dhanekula Srinath ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K. R. RAGHAVENDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 347/2025 ORDER: Heard Sri K.R.Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 2019 on the file of Rent Controller – cum – IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division). In the said suit an order to proceed ex-parte was passed against the defendant. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 12.04.2019. The ex-parte decree was put to execution. 3. During pendency of the execution petition, the defendant/respondent filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 12.04.2019. He also filed an application for condonation of delay of 1065 days. The application under Section 5 of limitation Act was allowed. The delay was condoned on payment of costs of Rs.2,130/- payable to the plaintiff. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.04.2019, the present CRP has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application, it was not stated by the defendant, as to why the condonation of delay was sought i.e., for what purpose. He further submits that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 6. On consideration, both aforesaid submissions deserve rejection. 7. The prayer in the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner/defendant prays that the Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1065 days i.e., from 12.04.2019, in the interest of justice and equity.” 8. The said application was filed along with the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Consequently, it was clear that the condonation of delay was sought in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, is too technical. 9. So far as the condonation of delay is concerned, the learned Trial Court has recorded the specific finding that the defendant had no knowledge and there was no valid service. From the record it was clearly revealed that there was no valid service of summons. Without valid service of summons, an ex- parte decree could not be passed. The learned Court also recorded that on perusal of the notes paper of the suit it transpired that, the office report on 18.03.2019 showed that the summons on the defendant by Registered post served on 28.02.2019 but the word “not” was struck of. It was not clear as to who struck off „not‟. If the complete endorsement was read the „Registered post was not served‟. In view of that report, the Court passed the order to proceed ex-parte. However, the Trial Court recorded that the word “not” was struck of. In view of such office report, the service on the defendant was considered mistakenly as served. 10. Nothing could be argued to the contrary. 11. Consequently, I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has recorded finding for specific reasons to reach the finding that, there was no service of summons. 12. No case for interference is made out. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Dated: 28.03.2025 AG 110 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 347/2025 Dated: 28.03.2025 AG