IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH (5TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATH C.R.P.No.2553 of 2007 Between: Panthangi Bhavannarayana … Petitioner-Plaintiff And: Ankireddy Bikshalu …. Respondent-Defendant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATH C.R.P.No.2553 of 2007 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.04.2007 in IA No.3691 of 2006 in OS No.837 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, wherein, the said application filed by the respondent herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 1346 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, was allowed subject to condition that the petitioner shall deposit the suit costs and half of the decretal amount on or before 30.04.2007 and withdrawal of such deposited amount is subject to the result of the main suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for recovery of certain amount due under a promissory note. The defendant remained exparte in the suit and the exparte decree was passed on 21.01.2003. The said decree was transmitted to Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bapatla. The petitioner herein filed E.P.No.26 of 2005 for realization of the decretal amount by seeking arrest of the respondent herein under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC. Notice was ordered in the said E.P. and the same was served on the respondent herein on 16.04.2005. He neither appeared in personal nor engaged an Advocate. He was set exparte in the said E.P. and the matter was posted for evidence of the Decree-holder. After recording the evidence of the Decree-holder, the trial Court ordered arrest of the respondent. According to the petitioner, when the Court Amin went to arrest the respondent, the respondent herein pushed him and ran away. Subsequently, respondent filed an application for setting the exparte decree in the suit along with the present application in IA No.3691 of 2006 for condoning the delay of 1311 days. According to the respondent/defendant, he was not aware of passing of the exparte decree, as he left the village and migrated to Bellary in search of his livelihood and therefore, he could not give instructions to the Advocate to file written statement. The petitioner contends that the respondent deliberately remained exparte in the suit and therefore, the trial Court considered it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the respondent to contest the suit. While giving the said opportunity, the trial Court directed the respondent to deposit the suit costs and also half of the decree amount and permitted to withdraw the same subject to the result of the suit. 4. The conduct of the respondent herein in remaining exparte in the suit and also in E.P. and subsequently causing obstructions to the Amin of the Court when he sought to effect arrest cannot be appreciated. Even if he had migrated to Bellary, he could have remained in touch with his Advocate and filed a written statement. However, as the trial Court has exercised its discretion to condone the delay so as to give an opportunity to the respondent herein-defendant to contest the suit by imposing some conditions, it cannot be said that the Court below has committed any legal infirmity or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. However, in view of the conduct of the respondent-defendant, it is considered necessary to impose stringent conditions before he can be afforded an opportunity to contest the suit by setting aside the exparte decree. 5. For the reasons stated above, the respondent is therefore directed to deposit entire suit amount and also suit costs, within four (4) weeks from today, after deducting the amount if any already deposited in pursuance of the impugned order. The petitioner herein-plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw half of the said amount and the entire costs, as directed by the trial Court in the impugned order and the remaining half amount shall be kept in fixed deposit as may be ordered by the trial Court, till the disposal of the suit. In the event of default in complying with the above, impugned order condoning the delay shall stand set aside and consequently IA No.3691 of 2006 stands dismissed and the exparte decree shall remain in force. In the event of exparte decree being set aside pursuant to the compliance with the above order, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 06.07.2010 bss