IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3694 OF 2009 Between: Sri Ravinder ..... Revision Petitioner AND 1. Bhagyamma & 5 others ..... Respondents/Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 7. T. Narayana & 23 others ..... Respondents/Defendants The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri A.P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Sri Mohan Vinod, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 and Sri Ch.Augaiah, learned counsel for the Respondent No.16. 2. The order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, on 21.04.2009, in I.A.No.22 of 2007 in O.S.No.10 of 1997, dismissing the application to condone the delay of 1359 days in filing an application for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree, dated 16.04.2003, in O.S.No.10 of 1997, led the unsuccessful Defendant No.18 to file this revision. 3. The Defendant No.18 contended in the petition that he came to know only on 20.12.2006 through the Defendant No.19 about the preliminary decree, the final decree petition and the petition for appointment of a Commissioner. While he claimed loss of memory about the details of receipt of notice in I.A.No.1070 of 2005 due to his undergoing treatment for left eye ailment at L.V.Prasad Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, he desired the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree to be condoned. The plaintiffs questioned the claims of the Defendant No.18 contending that the legal heirs of the deceased/second defendant were brought on record after issuance of notices to such legal representatives including through publication in Pledge Newspaper. The plaintiffs further contended that the Defendant No.18 who acknowledged the receipt of notices, in I.A.No.1070 of 2005 and I.A.No.1071 of 2005, on 29.06.2005, cannot claim to have known about the suit only on 20.12.2006 through the Defendant No.19. The alleged ignorance of the proceedings was, therefore, contended to be unacceptable. 4. While marking Exs.P1 to P40 during the enquiry, the trial Court rendered the impugned order noting that the suit for partition had the father of the Defendant No.18 as the second defendant and on his death, his legal representatives were brought on record as Defendant Nos.17 to 20 and they were set ex parte. The trial Court also noted that the application by the plaintiffs for permission to cross-examine the Defendant No.18 about his contentions herein was allowed and the Defendant No.18 admitted during the course of cross-examination that he came to know about the suit for the first time on 29.06.2006. The trial Court, hence, did not rely on the claim about the knowledge of the Defendant No.18 about the suit through the Defendant No.19 on 20.12.2006, while noting that the Revision Petitioner was taking treatment for the ailment of left eye as inpatient during different periods between 18.12.2005 and 24.06.2006 and also from 20.09.2006 to 22.09.2006. While not disbelieving the treatment taken by the Revision Petitioner, but commenting about the absence of any indication by the documents about the Revision Petitioner being advised to take bed rest during the said periods, the trial Court referred to the Revision Petitioner not being an inpatient on 12.07.2006, when he was set ex parte in the final decree petition. The trial Court also referred to the response of the other defendants/other legal representatives of the deceased/second defendant and considered that no reasonable explanation was offered by the Revision Petitioner atleast for the delay from 29.06.2006 to 20.12.2006. Hence, the trial Court considered the Revision Petitioner to be disentitled for any condonation of the delay of 1359 days. 5. It is true that valuable rights of the Revision Petitioner in substantial movable and immovable properties might have been involved in the suit for partition and it is also true that the absence of diligence in contesting the suit by his father, the deceased second defendant or the other legal representatives of the deceased second defendant might have prejudiced the rights and interests of the Revision Petitioner in the suit schedule properties. However, during cross-examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs before the trial Court in this application, the Revision Petitioner who is a practising Advocate of the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, had stated that he came to know about the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs for the first time on 29.06.2006. The Revision Petitioner also stated again that he received the notices in I.A.No.1070 of 2005 on 29.06.2006, after which he consulted Sri S.N.Chari, Advocate of Sangareddy and instructed him to file petitions for setting aside the ex parte orders. He was not aware whether the said counsel filed the petitions within the stipulated period as per his instructions. 6. He was ignorant whether the other legal representatives of the second defendant engaged the same counsel and he was admittedly not in the hospital when the ex parte orders were passed in the final decree application on 12.07.2006. It is true that he denied receiving any notices in the petition to implead the legal representatives of the deceased/second defendant, but he was not sure whether he did not attend the Court in the suit during the periods in which he was not hospitalised and even the most liberal perusal of his deposition does not even remotely convey any attempt to explain the inaction between 29.06.2006, the date of knowledge of the proceedings, and 20.12.2006, when the petition for condonation of delay in approaching the Court for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed. 7. While it is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was universally held to be liable for liberal interpretation to advance the cause of substantial justice, the liberality cannot extend to condoning the total absence of any explanation for the delay. Though rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice, they cannot be altogether ignored so as to interfere with the valuable rights accrued to the opposite parties by virtue of the law of limitation. 8. While no expression of opinion can be made about the merits of the claims of the Revision Petitioner concerning the preliminary decree schedule properties, he will be entitled under law to defend himself against the request for passing a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree in respect of those properties with the aid of whatever possible defences are legally open to him in respect thereof not withstanding the ex parte preliminary decree. But, he may not have any justification for the ex parte preliminary decree itself reversed by seeking to condone the delay in approaching the Court without any explanation as such, alteast for a period of six months out of the delay of over 1359 days. The impugned order of the trial Court cannot therefore be interfered with and the revision has to fail. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _______________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) Dated: 23rd December, 2009. KL