THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4126 of 2007 Date: 07.08.2009 Between: Mohammad Jaweed … Petitioner. And Venmula Ramakrishna and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4126 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/1st respondent in the O.P. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decretal order, dated 16.5.2007, in I.A.No.1 of 2007 in O.P.No.291 of 2004, passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 123 days in filing the petition for setting aside the exparte decree, dated 28.7.2006. 3. I have perused the impugned order. 4. The petitioner, who is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle which was involved in the accident, is first respondent in the O.P. filed claiming compensation in a motor accident. Admittedly, he received notice, but it is not clear from the affidavit as to whether he received notice in the main O.P. or in the E.P. proceedings. However, quite some time back, despite service of notice by substituted service, the petitioner did not choose to enter appearance. Consequently, the Court below proceeded with the trial of the O.P., both sides adduced evidence and finally a judgment and decree was passed. Since the petitioner did not contest the matter, he was set exparte. This is not a case where the exparte decree was passed and the same shall be deemed to be a judgment and decree passed on merits. Therefore, the Court below rightly observed that since the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is not maintainable, the question of condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the expare decree does not arise. 5. I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the reasoning accorded by the Court below in dismissing the application and the same does not call for any interference. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. However, it is open for the petitioner to workout his remedies, if any, elsewhere. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 07.08.2009 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4126 of 2007 07.08.2009 (Msr)