THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4715 OF 2008 DATED 28-01-2010 Between: Sk.Khajabeen & another. … PETITIONERS And Shaik Madar Saheb. ... RESPONDENT ORDER: This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order, dated 23-09-2008 made in I.A.No.4 of 2008 in O.S.No.443 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali. 2. Petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.443 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioners herein. The suit was decreed ex parte on 18-04-2006 and thereafter E.P.No.154 of 2006 was filed complaining that in spite of there being a decree against the defendants, the plaintiff is interfering with the suit schedule property. 3. According to the petitioners, they were not aware of the decreeing of the suit ex parte on 18-04-2006 and their advocate has informed them about the decreeing of the suit only after service of notice in the said Execution Petition. Therefore, they filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and restore the suit. Since there was a delay of 488 days in filing the said application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, they filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the said delay, and the said application was resisted by the respondent-plaintiff. The trial Court, however after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that both the petitioners are poor ladies and they do not know what was exactly happening in the Court till they were served with the notice in the said Execution Petition. Therefore, they have approached their advocate and filed I.A.No.4 of 2008, and the said application was erroneously dismissed by the trial Court, without taking the circumstances into consideration. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff strenuously contended that there was no explanation from the petitioners in filing the said I.A.No.4 of 2008 with such an abnormal delay and there was no effort made by them to disprove the allegations of the respondent that on 09-11-2006 itself they appeared before the Court. Moreover, the petitioners are absolutely silent to the effect that on what date they have received the notice in the Execution Petition and it is pertinent to note that if really they approached their advocate in the suit once in a month and there is no information from him about the stage of the suit, nothing prevented them to verify the stage of the suit from the Court records itself. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and no interference can be made by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Perused the impugned order and the other material made available on record. It appears, both the petitioners are poor ladies, living on daily wages. The petitioners, being illiterates, may not be knowing the strict rules and procedure to be followed in the Court of law. May be, they have not seen their advocate also for such a long time, but that itself does not mean that the petitioners should not be given one more opportunity to defend themselves in a case of this nature by condoning the delay on certain terms. Instead of that, the trial Court has adopted a pedantic approach saying that there is no explanation from the petitioners for filing the petition with such an abnormal delay of more than 488 days. 6. It may not be out of place to mention that the Court below also has not discussed in detail, while passing an ex parte decree on 18-04-2006. The order passed by the trial Court is a cryptic order passed, stating that on the basis of Exs.A1 and A2, the suit is decreed. Such an approach made by the trial Court is depricable. Even in a suit where an ex parte decree needs to be passed, the Court has to discuss the evidence available on record in detail and render a finding. 7. Under those circumstances, particularly petitioners being uneducated Muslim ladies making living by doing coolie, I am of the opinion that to give one more opportunity to the petitioners to defend their case effectively, the delay of 488 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is liable to be condoned on payment of costs of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the I.A. is ordered accordingly. 8. Thus, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU, J 28th January, 2010. Tsy