THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1919 OF 2014 Dated:18-07-2014 Between:
Ravi Jolly and another ... PETITIONER AND Syed Abdul Kareem .. RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1919 OF 2014 ORDER:
The respondent filed O.S No. 336 of 2010 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,50,800/- said to have been paid as advance under an agreement of sale dated 01-09-2007. The suit was decreed ex parte on 29-12-2010. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P No. 15 of 2010 for execution of the decree. At that stage, the petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was a delay in filing the application, they filed I.A No. 2867 of 2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. According to them, they were not served with any summons in the suit and they came to know about the decree only when steps in the E.P were being taken. The delay was said to be 22 days from the date of knowledge. They alleged that soon after they came to know about the decree, they obtained the certified copy and immediately filed the application.
The respondent opposed the I.A by filing a counter. It was stated that the delay is enormous and the contention that it is only 22 days in incorrect. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 17-06-2014. Hence, this revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
If one views the delay of 22 days in isolation, it straightaway deserves to be condoned even without a semblance of explanation or reasoning. However, if one takes into account, the date of decree, the delay is very long. The petitioners specifically pleaded that they were not served with summons in the suit and the delay was reckoned from the date of knowledge.
The necessity for this court to discuss the matter at length is obviated on account of the fact that the petitioners expressed their willingness to pay the decretal amount. The respondent is also interested in only recovering the amount.
Therefore, the C.R.P is allowed by setting aside the order under revision and allowing the I.A No. 2867 of 2013. Thereby, the delay is condoned. To give a quietus to the entire controversy, instead of setting aside the decree, it is directed that in case the petitioners pay the decretal amount in three monthly instalments commencing from 01-08-2014, the decree shall stand satisfied. If they fail to pay the amount, the decree shall remain and it shall be open to the respondent to proceed with the E.P.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 18th July, 2014 ks