IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3322 of 2011 Between: P. Madhusudhan Goud .. Petitioner AND N. Pandu Ranganna .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3322 of 2011 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.2648 of 2009 in O.S.No.73 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, dated 19.07.2011, by which the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 464 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed with costs. 2. The petitioner/defendant claimed to be at Sindhanoor of Karnataka State for eking out his livelihood after receiving the summons of the suit and had no knowledge of the further proceedings in the suit till he received notices in E.P.No.56 of 2009 in the first week of September, 2009, at his village. He attended the Court on 07.09.2009 and he claimed to have discharged the debt earlier and could not take back the promissory note, which was stated by the plaintiff to have been lost. He claimed to have kept quiet for that reason and, hence, desired the delay of 464 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree to be condoned. 3. The request was resisted by the plaintiff contending that the alleged shifting of the defendant to Karnataka State for livelihood is false. In fact, the defendant engaged an Advocate in the suit, but did not file a written statement. The defendant did not discharge the decree debt even later and in the absence of any documentary evidence to show the shifting of the defendant to Karnataka area to explain the abnormal delay, the delay cannot be condoned. 4. The trial Court passed the impugned order noting that the knowledge of the suit for the defendant is admitted and why the defendant did not engage any Advocate and contest the suit was not explained. The details of the alleged migration to Karnataka State were not forthcoming and, therefore, the trial Court dismissed the petition with costs. 5. The defendant challenges the said order in this revision contending that he, being an agriculturist, had to go to the neighbouring state in search of livelihood and the same cannot be a ground for permitting miscarriage of justice. In fact, he filed his written statement also along with the petitions clearly alleging the suit pronote to be fabricated, the debt to be discharged and the plaintiff to have failed to return the pronote and, hence, he desired the impugned order to be reversed. 6. Heard Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Someswara Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The revision petitioner, during the course of hearing today, filed the affidavit of one Sanjay Reddy, President of Sindhanoor Village and Mandal, Raichur District, Karnataka State to claim that the defendant was his tenant in his house at Sindhanoor from 20.02.2008 to 20.08.2009 when he was doing bore well digging business on rental basis. 8. The point for consideration is whether the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree needs to be condoned. 9. The fact that the defendant received the summons of the suit is not in dispute and though he was not very specific as to on what date he left for Sindhanoor of Karnataka State, it was evident from the tenor of the affidavit that such migration was soon after the receipt of summons in the suit. The occupation of the defendant in agriculture is not seriously in dispute and the vagaries of nature, having an adverse impact on agriculturists, were stated to be the reason behind, which is even a matter which the Court can take judicial notice of. The defendant claims to have come to know of the further proceedings in the suit only in the first week of September, 2009, when he was served with notices in E.P.No.56 of 2009 and also attempted to attribute his silence earlier to the alleged discharge of the suit liability. While no expression of opinion can be made about such a plea of discharge, which is also a part of the written statement filed by the defendant in the suit which has to be determined on merits in accordance with law by the trial Court on the evidence of both parties in the suit, the delay of 464 days to set aside the ex parte decree is, thus, primarily attributed to the economic distress of the defendant which led him to be in a neighbouring State during the relevant period. Though no corroborating evidence for such a claim was placed before the trial Court, the affidavit of the alleged owner of the house where the defendant was residing during the relevant period produced before this Court need not be straight away suspected and the affidavit corroborates the claims of the defendant about his stay in Karnataka State during the relevant time. The existence of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is always considered to be susceptible to liberal interpretation and the anxiety of a Court should be to arrive at the truth on merits and not dispose of a case on technicalities. The interests of justice should be the prime concern and notwithstanding the lack of strict diligence by the defendant, the delay may be considered to be condoned on appropriate terms. Under the circumstances, deposit of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) may be commensurate with the quantum of delay and the inconvenience caused to the opposite side. 10. Therefore, the order in I.A.No.2648 of 2009 in O.S.No.73 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, dated 19.07.2011, is set aside and the said I.A.No.2648 of 2009 will be allowed on deposit of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs with the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Gadwal, on or before 28.11.2011; in default, the petition shall stand dismissed. In the event of I.A.No.2648 of 2009 being allowed, the trial Court shall determine the petition to set aside the ex parte decree on merits in accordance with law, after giving every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties as expeditiously as possible within a period of three (3) months. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 31st October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3322 of 2011 Date: 31st October, 2011 KL