Held that the lower court correctly dismissed the application to condone a 232-day delay in setting aside an ex-parte order as the petitioner failed to explain the cause for delay or provide evidence of ailments. In view, this revision is dismissed.
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4213 OF
2011
ORDER:
This revision is filed against the order dated 22.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.486 of 2010 in I.A.No. 210 of 2010 in O.S.No. 493 of 2002 by the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.
Petitioner herein is the second defendant in the suit viz., O.S.No. 493 of 2002. Pending suit, plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 210/2009 for passing final decree in that second defendant was set exparte on 16.2.2010. Hence he filed a petition viz., 486 of 2010 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay of 232 days in filing application to set aside exparte order passed in IA.No. 210 of 2009. The Court below dismissed the application holding that the delay was not properly explained except stating that the petitioner is old aged and suffering from ailments, no evidence is let in to prove the same. Aggrieved by the same,
the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the court below ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner could not attend the court on 16.2.2010 to participate in proceedings of I.A.NO. 210 of 2009 only because he could not trace out the summons he received to know exact day of hearing.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the order passed is quite reasonable and there are no ground to interfere with order passed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, I.A.No.486 of 2011 was filed to condone the delay of 232 days in filing the application to set aside exparte order passed in I.A.No. 210 of 2009. Further, when the petitioner is having knowledge of the proceedings why such delay is caused is also not explained properly. Therefore, the court below dismissed the application observing that except stating that petitioner is old aged and suffering from
ailments, no evidence is let in to prove the same. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the court below and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 18th November 2011 KA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to condone delay should be allowed when the petitioner failed to prove the cause for delay.
Second Defendant
Plaintiffs
Ghulam Mohammed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
