IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2816 OF 2007 Between: K.Sreenivasulu ..... PETITIONER AND T.Rama Krishna and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2816 of 2007 O R D E R : The Revision petitioner is the 1st respondent in O.P.No.430 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Anantapur). The O.P. was filed by the respondents 1and 2 herein under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of one Sudheer Babu in a motor accident. The revision petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, which allegedly caused the accident, whereas the 3rd respondent herein is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. The revision petitioner was set exparte and an award was passed in O.P.No.430 of 1998, dated 16.10.2001 awarding compensation of Rs.63,000/- with costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 9% per annum making the 1s t respondent/revision petitioner liable to pay the compensation. The O.P. was dismissed against the Insurance Company/3rd respondent herein. On 15.12.2003 the revision petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte order under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code along with I.A.No.814 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 762 days in filing the said application. It was pleaded by him that he came to know of the award only when he received the notice in the Execution Petition on 19.11.2003. It is further explained that though summons were served on him in O.P.No.430 of 1998, he had requested the Insurance Company to get the appearance entered on his behalf and also sent his vakalath. He came to know that he was set exparte in O.P only after the notice in E.P. was served on him. Though the said application was not opposed by the claimants, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Insurance Company. After hearing both the parties, the Court below by order dated 18.06.2007, dismissed I.A.No.814 of 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Even in this revision petition the respondents 1 and 2/claimants in O.P.No.430 of 1998 did not choose to enter appearance despite notice. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance company. The specific case of the petitioner is that he came to know of the exparte award dated 16.10.2001 only on 19.11.2003 when the notice in the execution petition was served on him. The said plea could not be contradicted by the respondents before the Court below. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company before this Court is that in view of the remedy of Appeal available under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal against the impugned order and the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable. So far as the application to condone the delay is concerned, the only question that requires consideration is whether sufficient cause could be shown within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code. As expressed above, since the specific plea of the petitioner that he came to know of the exparte award only on 19.11.2003, remained un-contradicted, there is no justifiable reason to reject the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay. Accordingly, the order under revision is hereby set aside and I.A.No.814 of 2004 in O.P.No.430 of 1998 is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-. The said costs shall be deposited to the credit of O.P.No.430 of 1998 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ Date: 05.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd