THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP NO. 4372 OF 2008 Date of Judgment: 21.7.2011 Between: Yalamaredy Janardhan Reddy …Petitioner and Jangili Rajeshwar Rao ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 4372 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed an application-I.A.No. 2174 of 2006 to set aside an exparte decree dated 3.5.1997 passed in OP No. 674 of 1995 by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal. Since the said application was filed beyond limitation, he also filed an application-IA No. 1261 of 2005 seeking condonation of delay of 334 days in filing the set aside petition. Both these applications were contested by the respondent and by order of the Tribunal dated 15.9.2006 IA No. 1261 of 2005 was allowed condoning the delay in filing the set aside petition. In the said order the Tribunal recorded that the summons issued in OP No. 674 of 1995 were never personally served on the petitioner and further the service on the petitioner was through publication in a local newspapers viz., Warangal Vani and that the said paper is said to have a local circulation in Warangal district and there was no circulation in Nalgonda district where the petitioner was residing. With these findings, the Tribunal held that the petitioner deserves an opportunity to contest the matter on merits and allowed the application condoning the delay in filing the set aside petition. Self-same affidavit of the petitioner in support of the present application-IA No. 2174 of 2006 to set aside the exparte decree was, however, viewed entirely differently by the Tribunal under the impugned order. While the Tribunal has not examined the cause shown by the petitioner as sufficient or not, but on the contrary has rejected the present application on the ground that the petitioner, having appeared in Execution Petition on 4.7.2004, did not file the application to set aside the decree immediately. Copy of the affidavit and the application show that it was filed in August, 2004 i.e., immediately after appearance of the petitioner in EP on 4.7.2004. I am further unable to appreciate as to how the Tribunal could have rejected the petitioner’s application in the light of the findings of the Tribunal in its order in IA No. 1261 of 2005, referred to above, that the service of the summons on the petitioner was not proper and that he deserves an opportunity on merits. The impugned order, therefore, is clearly unsustainable and liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner will now have an opportunity to contest OP No. 674 of 1995 on merits by filing a counter, provided such counter is filed within four weeks from today. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 21.7.2011 KR