THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 5702 OF 2010 Date of Judgment: 11.2.2011 Between: Sundara Bai …Petitioner and Susheela Bai ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 5702 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be legal representative of original defendant in OS No. 7 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bichkonda, had filed IA No. 36 of 2010 seeking condonation of delay of 1028 days in filing an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the exparte decree dated 17.4.2007. The said application was filed together with an application to set aside the exparte decree and on contest, the trial Court has dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay under the impugned order. Hence this revision. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay that the petitioner came to know of the exparte decree only when the respondent herein filed a written statement in a connected suit instituted by the petitioner and thereafter he had consulted his advocate and filed the present application seeking to set aside the decree as well as for condonation of delay. The respondent who filed his counter resisted the said application denying that there is any error on the part of the trial court in setting the original defendant exparte. It is also contended that there is neither any explanation nor sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. The trial Court under the impugned order found that the petitioner has failed to discharge his burden and cannot seek to set aside the exparte decree by throwing burden on the court and consequently dismissed the application for condoning the delay. In this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to place several documents before this court in the nature of process server’s report and docket order of the trial Court. However, none of these documents were produced before the trial court and as such under the revisional jurisdiction of this court, these documents cannot be looked into for the first time. It is, however, to be noticed that under the impugned order there is no consideration of the application for condonation of delay and sufficiency of the cause as pleaded by the petitioner. The present application for condonation of delay was rejected on the ground that there are no merits in the application for setting aside the exparte decree. The Court below has not dealt with the aspect as to whether the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The court below has apparently lost sight of the fact that the application for condonation of delay has to be independently considered before taking up the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and IA No. 36 of 2010 is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration. If the parties desire to adduce evidence, they may be given one opportunity. The court below shall hear both sides and decide the application afresh in accordance with law. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 11.2.2011 KR