IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A.No.583 of 2009 Date:29.09.2010 Between: C.Murali Prasad .....Appellant AND M/s.Prakash Financiers, rep. By its Proprietor, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A.No.583 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.03.2009 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.2989 of 2008 in A.S.No.16 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the court below dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the appellant herein for reopening A.S.No.16 of 2005. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. It is one of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant herein that earlier counsel Sri Ch. Lakshmi Narayana is no longer his advocate since he has given no objection to the appellant and the appellant has engaged one Sri V. Shankar Rao on 19.09.2005 itself. Whereas the order under challenge is pronounced on 28.11.2006 without hearing the counsel on record. As seen from the order, it is clear that as if Sri Ch. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate argued the case, but as seen from one of the grounds of appeal, he is no more an Advocate engaged by the appellant. That may be the ground for setting aside the ex parte order, but at the same time, the petitioner has not filed any application to set aside the ex parte order within the time prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. Though Order XLI Rule 21 CPC does not prescribe time of 30 days for filing petition to set aside the ex parte order from the date of pronouncing the judgment, but Article 123 of Limitation Act prescribes the period of limitation of 30 days in case of setting aside a decree passed ex parte or to hear the appeal decree or heard exparte. Admittedly such petition was not filed in time. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant herein is that the appellant received the summons in EP No.177 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and then only he got knowledge of passing the ex parte decree. But that cannot be a ground for the appellant, in view of the fact that the appellant had already engaged an Advocate and therefore, it can be reasonably said that the appellant was having knowledge about passing of the judgment. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision reported in Savithri Amma Seethamma v. Aratha Karthy[1] wherein it was held: “It appears that on 30th March, 1982 when C.R.P.No.766 of 1981 preferred by the first respondent came to be heard by the learned single judge of the High Court, the advocate engaged on behalf of the appellant could not appear because he was engaged in another Court and it was only later, after the Court had closed for the summer vacation on 7th April, 1982, that he came to know that the revision application had already been heard and decided in favour of the first respondent. The learned advocate for the appellant, on coming to know what had happened made an application supported by his own affidavit for rehearing of the revision application.” The above decision has no application in this case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the court below. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 29, 2010 Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A.No.583 of 2009 September 29, 2010 [1] AIR 1983 Supreme Court 318