APHC010069922020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 498/2020 Between: 1. MANDALAPU ESWARA RAO, S/O SRI SEETA RAMAYYA, HINDU, AGE- 60 YEARS, OCC- LORRY OWNER, R/O PLOT NO. 19 AND 20, AUTO NAGAR, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. PYLA SAI, S/O SRI APPARAO, LORRY CLEANER, R/O YELESWARAM 533 426, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. AKULA BABOJI, S/O NARAYANA, R/O RAMNAGAR, MINDI POST - 530 012, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court against the Decree and Order made in I.A.No.110 of 2019 in M.V.O.P. No. 428 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, Dated 03- 01-2020 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No. 31 of 2016 in M.V.O.P.No. 428 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, pending disposal of the present Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to extend the interim order granted in I.A.No. 01 of 2020 in C.R.P.No. 498 of 2020 dated 24.02.2020 until further orders and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 The Court made the following order: The 1st respondent filed MVOP No.428 of 2004, on the file of IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in road accident that took place on 08.03.2003, at about 2 am near sub-station, outskirts of Mamillagudem Village, Moethe P.S.Limits, Nalgonda District. The said MVOP was allowed by order dated 22.03.2006. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and an ex-parte decree dated 22.03.2006, was passed against him without service of summons. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, he received summons in EP No.31 of 2016, by showing his name as M.Eswara Rao, S/o. Seetharamayya from XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, on enquiry, he came to know that the ex-parte decree was passed against him in the said MVOP on 22.03.2006. Immediately, he filed the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 4360 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, to set aside ex-parte decree dated 22.03.2006. The said application was dismissed by order dated 4 03.01.2020. Questioning the same, the present revision petition is filed. 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that, he did not receive summons in the said MVOP and came to know about the ex- parte decree dated 22.03.2006 only upon receiving summons/notices in the execution petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that, his name is Mandalapu Eswara Rao, whereas in the MVOP, his name was wrongly mentioned as Medarimetta Eswara Rao. It is pertinent to note that during the cross examination, the petitioner/PW1 has admitted that his office address is Street No.19, 20-B Block, Auto Magar, Visakhapatnam. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that, the executing court perused the acknowledgement in MVOP, which contained the same address as mentioned in the present execution petition. The address of the petitioner shown in the MVOP and the execution petition is one and the same. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no summons/notices were served in the MVOP cannot be believed. Taking advantage of the fact that the surname of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned, the petitioner has filed the present application seeking to condone 5 the inordinate delay of 4630 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. 4. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, except stating that the surname of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the MVOP, nothing is placed on record to show that he did not receive the summons, on the contrary, the notice was issued to the same address as it was given in the execution petition. As already noted supra, the complaint mentioned in the MVOP and in the execution petition being one and the same, the contention of the petitioner that he is unaware of the ex-parte decree dated 22.03.2006, cannot be believed. The trial court having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner has rightly dismissed the application. As the petitioner failed to offer any plausible explanation to condone the inordinate delay of 4630 days, this court does not find any illegality in the order impugned. 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.18.07.2025 DSB 6 252 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.498 of 2020 Date 18.07.2025 U DSB