THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3343 OF 2011 DATE:27.08.2011 BETWEEN PAMIDI SUBBAIAH …PETITIONER AND PATCHIPULUSU SRIRAMULU. …RESPONDENT. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3343 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2010 in I.A.No:173 of 2010 in O.S.No:722 of 2007 on the file of the Court of 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C), Nellore. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of certain amounts basing on two promissory notes dated 15.3.2002 and 21.5.2002 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. In this suit, the trial has been commenced and the suit has been adjourned from time to time for the evidence of the defendant. As the defendant did not turn up, the evidence on his side was closed and ultimately, on 7.9.2009, an exparte decree was passed by the Court below. The defendant made an application in I.A.No:173 of 2010 under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 81 days in filing the set aside petition The said application was dismissed by the Court below and aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the defendant. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to ill health only, the defendant could not attend before the Court on the day when the case was posted for evidence of the defendant. In support of his contention, he filed the medical certificate issued by the General Physician and Diabetologist. But, the Court below without considering the same, has dismissed the application. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that no document was produced before the Court below as alleged by the petitioner except referring the same in the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No:173 of 2010. It is further submitted that with a view to drag on the matter only, the defendant has intentionally avoided to appear before the Court below and invited the exparte order and apart from that, filing the application after a lapse of 81 days is only with a view to drag on the matter as far as possible and therefore, the order revision does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff that the defendant admits the consideration passed under the promissory note dated 15.3.2002 and the dispute is only with regard to the another promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 21.2.2002 and therefore, the defendant may be directed to deposit half of the amount under the suit promissory note dated 15.3.2002. The suit is of the year 2007. It is not in dispute that the trial in the suit was commenced and when the suit was posted for the evidence of the defendant, the defendant remained absent and consequently, an exparte decree was passed. The medical certificate produced along with the material papers shows that the father of the defendant was in bed ridden state and in that connection, the defendant had visited the hospital to look after his father from 1.9.2011 to 10.2.2011. The question as to whether the defendant admitted the claim of only one pronote and the controversy is only with regard to another pronote is a matter to be adjudicated before the Court below after a full fullfledged trial but not at this stage of interlocutory proceedings. The defence taken by the defendant has not been taken into consideration by the Court below while passing the order impugned on the ground that no evidence was adduced. Now, the defendant has filed the medical certificate issued by the General Physician and Diabetologist along with the material papers. In this case, the suit is of the year 2007 and the suit claim is based on the two promissory notes, one of which is alleged to have been admitted and the suit is at the stage of the evidence of the defendant and at this stage, if one more opportunity is given to him, no prejudice would be caused to the other side. Apart from that, a lis between the parties has to be adjudicated on its own merits but not on mere techniqualities, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings of this nature. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to elicit bonafides on the part of the defendant, I feel it just and proper to allow I.A.173 of 2010 on condition of the defendant paying Rs.2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred only) to the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and consequently, on the compliance of this order, the petition to set aside the exparte order shall stand allowed. Subject to the above observation, this revision petition is allowed. No costs. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Gurc. Date:27.8.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3343 OF 2011 DATE:27.08.2011