HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3546 of 2014 Date: 19-12-2014 Between:
L. Murali Krishna .. Petitioner AND P. Anand Babu and 3 others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3546 of 2014 ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25-07-2014 passed in I.A.No.13 of 2014 in O.S.No.255 of 2009, dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 426 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19-10-2012.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent herein filed O.S.No.255 of 2009 against the revision petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 herein and the Court below passed ex parte decree against the revision petitioner on 19-10-2012 due to his absence, and thereafter, the revision petitioner filed a petition for setting aside ex parte decree dated 19-10-2012 along with I.A.No.13 of 2014 as there was delay of 426 days in filing the said petition. The Court below dismissed I.A.No.13 of 2014 observing that the revision petitioner could not give any satisfactory explanation for filing the application after the decree has been passed. Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. From the material on record, it appears that the Court below dismissed I.A.No.13 of 2014 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 426 days in filing the petition for setting aside the order by observing that the revision petitioner could not give any satisfactory explanation for filing the application after the decree has been passed. The Court below also observed that the revision petitioner shown his occupation as business with his residential address as House No.1-7-152/A, New Gunj, Mahabubnagar, but in the plaint, the occupation and address of the revision petitioner was shown as business, resident of 1-7- 152/02, Nawabpet Road, New Gunj, Mahabubnagar, and hence, it is found that the contents of the affidavit of the petitioner is far from truth. It was further observed that he has not denied his occupation and place of his residence at the time of filing the written statement, which was filed on 11-03-2010 and that the Manager of the plaintiff company filed his affidavit as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.A.1 to A.9, but the counsel for the defendants failed to cross-examine and ultimately the cross- examine was recorded NIL and that for the first time the defendant No.1 has stated that he has been working as lorry driver, whereas in the cause title, the occupation of the 1st defendant was shown as business, more so, the revision petitioner/1st defendant has not mentioned as to when did he come to know the passing of ex parte decree against him. Basing on the false affidavit filed by the revision petitioner/1st defendant with abnormal delay, the Court below has rightly exercised its discretion in dismissing the said application and the order under challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of restricted revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 19-12-2014 Ksn