THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2916 OF 2014 DATED 31ST OCTOBER, 2014 Between:
B. Bhagyamma … Petitioner and K. Veeraswamy and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2916 OF 2014 O R D E R The plaintiff in O.S. No.169 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, is the petitioner. He secured an ex parte decree in the said suit on 03.02.2011. Thereupon, defendants 3 and 4 therein filed I.A. No.341 of 2013 in the suit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of the delay of 746 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 03.02.2011. By order dated 01.07.2014, the trial Court condoned the delay. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this Court.
Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the trial Court extracted the contents of the petition at length and referred to the counter filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in one single paragraph. The order passed by the trial Court is essentially contained in paragraph 7 of the order and manifests that there is no discussion whatsoever as to what prevailed upon the trial Court to condone the delay. Reference is made therein to the petitioner’s claim that respondent No.1 got managed the Process Server and filed a report stating that summons were affixed on the respective houses. There is no finding recorded as to whether the trial Court accepted this claim of the petitioner and if so, the reasons therefor.
Notably, the delay in the filing of the subject petition was substantial, running into more than two years. The trial Court therefore ought to have recorded reasons for condonation of such long delay. The order under revision falls woefully short in so far as this requirement is concerned. On this short ground, the order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to both parties.
The CRP is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this order. No order as to costs.
SANJAY KUMAR, J 31ST OCTOBER, 2014
Svv