IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2834 of 2011 Between: Mangali Chennamma & another .. Petitioners AND Mangali Chandraiah .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2834 of 2011 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 03.02.2011, in I.A.No.350 of 2009 in O.S.No.231 of 2008, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar. 2. The revision petitioners claim that the first defendant was looking after the defence on behalf of both the defendants in the suit and the defendants were set ex parte by the trial Court on 14.10.2008 due to non-filing of the written statement and an ex parte decree was passed on 23.10.2008. The defendants claimed that the first defendant, aged 69 years, was unwell for one year and was taking treatment in private nursing homes at Mahabubnagar District. The second defendant was stated to be attending on the first defendant during his sickness. Consequently, they sought for condonation of delay of 358 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. 3. That request was contested by the plaintiff claiming that the ex parte judgment was on 29.10.2008 after recording his evidence on 23.10.2008. The first defendant was stated to be hale and healthy and an advocate filed vakalat for the defendants in the suit on 21.07.2008, while another advocate filed vakalat on 12.08.2008. It was only when there was no further participation by the defendants that further steps were ordered in the suit and again after receiving notices in the execution petition on 20.08.2009, the defendants appeared before the Court and sought for time to engage an advocate. On 21.10.2009, the defendants appeared through the counsel before the Court, but they filed the present petition much later and, hence, the delay cannot be condoned. 4. The trial Court, in the impugned order, found that the medical certificate shows the ill-health only from 01.08.2009 to 30.08.2009 and it is not known whether the first defendant was admitted in the hospital. No sufficient cause for the delay can be considered to have been explained under the circumstances and there was no reason for the second defendant not to pursue the defence. Hence, due to the lack of diligence of the defendants, they were considered disentitled to any condonation of the delay. 5. The dismissal of the petition for that reason led the defendants to approach this Court with this revision contending that the failure of the defendants to pursue their defence was only due to the ill-health of the first defendant which ought to have been considered by the trial Court. 6. Notice before admission ordered to the respondent/plaintiff was returned as refused and consequently, the service was considered sufficient. 7. Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of revision, desired that an opportunity to produce appropriate evidence to prove the existence of sufficient cause for the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree may be given to the defendants who may not be deprived of an opportunity of defending themselves in the matter involving valuable rights in immovable property. The impugned order does not show whether there was any request from the parties to adduce any oral or documentary evidence during the enquiry into the application. It appears as though the matter was heard straight on the pleadings of the parties. In view of the valuable rights of the parties involved in the suit and as rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice and not to punish the parties for any technical lapses, providing another opportunity to the defendants to prove the reason for the delay through appropriate evidence may subserve the ends of justice though the conduct of the defendants cannot be considered exemplary or diligent on the admitted facts. 8. Therefore, the order, dated 03.02.2011, in I.A.No.350 of 2009 in O.S.No.231 of 2008, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar, is set aside and the said I.A.No.350 of 2009 is remitted back to the trial Court for giving an opportunity to both parties to place any oral and/or documentary evidence before the trial Court in this regard and for determination of the application on merits in accordance with law after such an opportunity. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19th August, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2834 of 2011 Date: 19th August, 2011 KL