HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1948 & 1949 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner and the 1st respondent are common in both the revisions. O.S.No.239 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, for the relief of recovery of money. Another suit being O.S. No.33 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent and his wife in the same Court for similar relief. Ex parte decrees were passed on 06-07-2005. Respondents filed applications under Rule – 13 of Order – IX CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decrees. Since there was delay in presentation of the applications, separate applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short ‘the Act’) were filed. They were ordered on 27-03-2008 on conditions. The conditions were complied with. The trial Court allowed the consequential applications viz., I.A. Nos.385 of 2008 and 870 of 2009 filed under Rule – 13 of Order – IX CPC and has set aside the ex parte decrees. Hence, these revisions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the delay in presentation of applications was condoned, the trial was under obligation to examine the matter on merits but has allowed the applications, almost mechanically. Learned counsel further submits that the grounds that are pleaded in the application for condonation of delay and for setting aside the ex parte decree are one and the same. 3. Respondents filed applications under Section 5 of the Act for condination of delay in presenting the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. No independent reasons are pleaded in these two sets of applications. The trial Court allowed the applications, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, by imposing conditions. The conditions were complied with and the delay was condoned. That would pave way to the trial Court to consider the applications to set aside the ex parte decree. 4. Time and again, this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the reasons that hold good for condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, would hold good for setting aside the ex parte decree also. If the petitioner is of the view that there was no excuse for respondent in not being present when the case was taken up, he ought to have assailed the order through which the delay was condoned. That, however, was not done. Though the trial Court was entitled to allow the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree almost as a matter of course, it has undertaken extensive discussion and allowed the applications. This Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. 5. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The trial Court shall endeavor to dispose of the suits, as early as possible and not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 14, 2010. KTL