Revision filed by plaintiff challenging trial court's order condoning delay for setting aside an ex parte decree in a specific performance suit; dismissed at 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
C.R.P.NO.4448 OF 2011
O R D E R
Heard the counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission.
2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27-09-2011 passed by the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.246/2009 in O.S.No.1726/2004 in condoning the delay of 40 in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 8.12.2008, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The suit was decreed ex parte and to set aside the same, the petitioner/defendant sought to file a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and as there was delay, the petitioner filed I.A.No.246/2009 in I.A.No.1726/2004 seeking to condone the delay. By order dated 23.9.2011, though the trial court found that the reasons furnished by the defendant with regard to illness, are not convincing and that no evidence was adduced to prove the same, in order to afford an opportunity to the defendant and to meet the ends of justice, allowed the I.A. by imposing costs of Rs.1,000/- with a default clause. The defendant sought to pay the costs to the counsel for the plaintiff, but he refused to receive and filed memo stating that the plaintiff is intending to file revision against the order dated 23.9.2011. As the sought to comply with the condition of payment of costs, the trial court closed the memo filed by the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision.
4. The suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff and in order to meet the ends of justice, the trial court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, condone the delay. I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the revision is dismissed at the state of admission.
AVS -----------------------------
28--12—2011
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the trial court's order condoning delay in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree should be allowed.
Plaintiff
Defendant
G.Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
