IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6272 OF 2009 Between: N. Ramaswamy .....PETITIONER AND Smt. D. Laxmi Bai and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6272 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 19.10.2009, in I.A.No.718 of 2008 in I.A.No.281 of 2006 in O.S.No.1755 of 2006, on the file of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) to set aside the ex parte decree in I.A.No.281 of 2006 in O.S.No.1755 of 2006, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ex parte decree in I.A.No.281 of 2006 was passed on 21.04.2006, that the judgment in the main suit was pronounced on 17.11.2006; that there was delay of more than two years in filing the present application; that the delay has not been properly explained; that proper service has been effected on respondents Nos.1 to 3 herein as a procedure contemplated under Order XLV Rule 17 C.P.C.; that the application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is not maintainable without filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that no summons have been served on respondent Nos.1 to 3; that within thirty days from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree, the present application has been filed, that the trial Court given an opportunity to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to contest the case, and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 4. The ex parte decree in I.A.No.281 of 2006 was passed on 21.04.2006 and the present application has been filed after two years from the date of the order. The reason given by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein is that they were not served with any summons, that for the first time they came to know about the said ex parte decree, on 05.10.2008 and immediately thereafter, they filed the present petition under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to set aside the said ex parte decree. When a petition to set aside the ex parte decree is filed, if the party satisfies the Court that summons have not been served on them, and that they have been prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Court, the Court shall set aside the same. The trial Court after accepting the case of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein that summons have not been duly served on them in the suit and that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 immediately after knowing about the passing of the ex parte decree on 05.10.2008 filed the present petition, rightly allowed the petition. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 11, 2010 MD Ex parte decree dated 17.11.2006 present under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 13.10.2008. reason given by the respondent herein is that he was not served with any summons and that for the first time he came to know about the decree when the claim was served on petitioner on 05.10.2008 and immediately thereafter the defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13. The petition to set aside the ex parte decree can be filed if he satisfies that summons has not be served so that he has been prevented from appearing the Court shall set aside the decree. Therefore, the trial Court after accepting the case of the petitioner that summon has not been duly served on him in the suit and when the respondent came to know about the passing of the ex parte decree for the first time on 05.10.2008 he filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 immediately thereafter. Therefore, a proper explanation was given by the defendant that he was not served with summons. Therefore, the trial Court rightly allowed the petition. That order needs no interference. No grounds. Dismissed.