The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a second defendant against an order rejecting an application to condone a significant delay in setting aside an ex parte decree due to lack of documentary proof.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2063 of 2011 ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The petitioner herein-second defendant being aggrieved by the order, dated 21.02.2011, passed by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereunder the application in I.A.No.952 of 2009 in O.S.No.4359 of 2004 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1365 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree in O.S.No.4359 of 2004 was dismissed, filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
It the case of the petitioner herein-second defendant that after filing of the said suit, the respondents-plaintiffs 1 to 5 have received their share amount in the plaint schedule property and executed the documents in his favour and as such, he was under impression that the plaintiffs will withdraw the suit and that is the reason why he has not prosecuted the said suit. But, in the impugned order, the Court below observed that in support of the said version, the first defendant did not file any documentary proof or third party affidavit. In such an event, it cannot be said that indulgence of this Court is required in the present case when no proper and convincing explanation is offered by the petitioner for the abnormal delay of 1365 days in filing the application seeking to set aside the ex
parte decree.
Accordingly, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or irregularity calling for interference by this Court.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
24th June 2011 DR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's dismissal of an application to condone a 1365-day delay in setting aside an ex parte decree.
Second Defendant
Plaintiffs 1 to 5
Ghulam Mohammed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
