THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.432 and 757 of 2013 Dated: 05.06.2014 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.432 of 2013 Between:
Akuthoti Jhansi Lakshmi .. Petitioner and Obulusetty China Obulesu .. Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.757 of 2013 Between:
Akuthoti Jhansi Lakshmi .. Petitioner and Obulusetty China Obulesu .. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. Nimmagadda Revathi For Mr. Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for the Respondent: --
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These civil revision petitions are filed against the common order dated 14.11.2012 in I.A.No.765 of 2012 and E.A.No.130 of 2012 in E.P.No.1 of 2012 in O.S.No.169 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur.
Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel representing the petitioner, and perused the record.
The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.169 of 2009 filed by the respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale. The petitioner failed to file the written statement and contest the case. Therefore, she was set ex parte on 31.05.2010 and the suit was posted for plaintiff’s evidence to 07.06.2010. On 07.06.2010, the respondent- plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he also examined P.W.2 on his side and got Exs.A1 to A4 marked. As the petitioner failed to contest the suit, the Court below has passed an ex parte decree on the said date. The respondent thereafter filed E.P.No.1 of 2012 for execution of the decree. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.765 of 2012 for condoning the delay of 632 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and E.A.No.130 of 2012 for stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.1 of 2012. By common order dated 14.11.2012, the lower Court has dismissed both these applications. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed these revision petitions.
At the hearing, Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously submitted that as valuable rights of the petitioner are involved, the lower Court ought to have taken a lenient view in considering the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay.
A perusal of the order of the lower Court would show that it has considered the applications of the petitioner from a right perspective. The conduct of the petitioner shows utter lack of diligence on her part in contesting the suit. Despite being given an opportunity, she failed to file written statement and allowed the Court to set her ex parte. At least, on 07.06.2010, when the case was posted for the evidence of the plaintiff, no effort was made by the petitioner to get the order setting her ex parte set aside and also to participate in the trial. She allowed an ex parte decree to be passed and, as rightly observed by the lower Court, even thereafter, she has kept quiet without filing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree till the plaintiff has filed the execution petition. As rightly observed by the lower Court, even the alleged cardiac problem suffered by the petitioner had no relevance as the same pertained to the year 2008 while the relevant period was between 19.01.2010 and 31.05.2010. Thus, except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner that her ill-health prevented her from contesting the suit and filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, no evidence is adduced by her in support of her plea that she was prevented by sufficient cause from contesting the suit and filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree within the stipulated period of limitation. On a careful consideration of the reasons given by the Court below, I do not find any error, jurisdictional or otherwise warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Both the civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petitions, C.R.P.M.P.Nos.569 and 1031 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 5th June, 2014 IBL