7. I have bestowed my attention to the facts and the submissions. The plaintiff had obtained an ex parte decree against the father of the proposed 2nd defendant on 09.08.2007. The father of the proposed 2nd defendant who had suffered the decree did not question the ex parte decree and did not seek to have it set aside though he had survived till 12.09.2008. The proposed 2nd defendant had filed the petition to set aside the ex parte decree suffered by his father, after the death of his father. However, as delay had occasioned in seeking to set aside the exparte decree, the proposed 2nd defendant had also filed the petition for condonation of a long delay of 1440 days. In that application, notice was sought to be served on the plaintiff; but, could not be served. According to the plaintiff, as on the date of the suit he was a resident of D.No.2/453, Kesanna Satram Street, Proddatur town but, subsequently, there is a change in his address and the said address was mentioned in the sale proclamation showing that the plaintiff is resident of D.No.3/332, Y.M.R. Colony, Proddatur; However, knowing fully well the changed address of the plaintiff, the proposed 2nd defendant had sent the notice in IA.No.1894 of 2011 to a wrong/old address and that therefore, the notice was not served on the plaintiff and that later a publication was made in Prajasakthi Telugu daily which has no circulation and that on such publication of notice in a paper about which the plaintiff has no knowledge, the plaintiff was set ex parte and a long delay of 1440 days was condoned by the learned Additional District Judge without passing a reasoned order as required under facts and in law.
