THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1827 of 2004 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.335 of 2002 against the petitioner in the Court of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,40,243/-. After receiving the summons in the suit, the petitioner entered appearance and filed written statement. The trial of the suit commenced. However, the petitioner did not participate in the trial. The suit was decreed on 29.11.2003. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Since there was a delay of 19 days in presentation of that application, he filed I.A.No.25 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court dismissed the same through order, dated 27.02.2004. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. There is some uncertainty as to whether an order was passed by the trial Court, wherein, the petitioner was set ex parte and whether the decree, dated 29.11.2003 is ex parte in nature. The trial Court has supplied necessary particulars as to the developments that have taken place ever since the trial has commenced. The orders passed on various dates disclose that the absence of the petitioner and his counsel was indeed at every point of time. Ultimately, the decree was passed without the evidence or participation of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the one, which was passed by the trial Court, partakes the character of an ex parte decree. The petitioner has furnished certain reasons that warranted his non-participation in the trial. The trial Court was not satisfied with the same. Be that as it may, the delay involved is only 19 days. It is not as if the suit was pending for years together. It was filed in 2002 and came to be decreed in 2003. This Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to participate in the trial subject to certain conditions. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. To avoid further complications, it is directed that the delay shall stand condoned and the decree, dated 29.11.2003 shall stand set aside, in case the petitioner deposits 1/4th of the decretal amount, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. In default, the decree shall stand as it is and it shall be open to the respondents to enforce the same. Since it would not be difficult to recover the amount from the petitioner in the event of the suit being dismissed, it is directed that the respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the amount, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 18th AUGUST, 2009. kvni