0THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1603 of 2010 O R D E R: The order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel in I.A.No.650 of 2009 in O.S.No.171 of 2007 led the unsuccessful petitioners/defendant Nos.18 to 22 to approach this Court with this revision. The suit was instituted for recovery of possession of the suit lands, consequent to the declaration of title sought and defendant Nos.18 to 22 claim through the affidavit filed in support of the petition, that the ex parte decree became known to them only on verification of the Court record on 06.11.2009. They claimed that the defendants 18, 19 and 20 did not receive any summons from the Court and the defendants 18 and 22 reside at Hyderabad. The endorsement of refusal on the postal cover in respect of defendant No.22 was claimed to be false and hence they sought for condonation of delay of 130 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The request was resisted by the plaintiff, who claimed that the delay was not explained properly and the petitioners knew about the suit and also about the judgment and decree and, hence, the delay cannot be condoned. The trial Court, after perusing the rival pleadings, rendered the impugned order observing that it cannot accept the denial of his signature by the 18th defendant on the postal acknowledgment. The trial Court also refused to accept the endorsement of refusal on the postal cover of the 22nd defendant to be false. It opined that when the 19th defendant left the village, he must have furnished his new address to his neighbours and also left the address on the doors of the original residence. While noting that the summons of the 21st defendant were returned due to ‘insufficient address’, the trial Court observed that the 20th defendant was personally served. Therefore, the trial Court felt that the petition had no merits and dismissed the same. Defendant Nos.18 to 22 challenge the said order herein on the ground that they were never served with the suit summons and could not have had the knowledge of the suit due to which they did not appear. A liberal view ought to have been taken and the delay ought to have been condoned permitting consideration of the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff are heard, while the other respondent Nos.2 to 18 were stated to be not necessary parties. The point for consideration is whether the delay ought to have been condoned? It is seen from the impugned order itself that the summons sent to the 21st defendant by post were returned with the endorsement that the address was insufficient and as such insofar as the 21st defendant is concerned, there could not have been even a remote possibility of presuming any knowledge about the summons or the suit. The endorsement of refusal on the communication sent to the 22nd defendant with the suit summons was not stated to have been confirmed by examining the postal employee who has made that endorsement or through his affidavit and any such refusal is denied by the 22nd defendant. Similarly, the summons sent to the 19th defendant through post were also returned with the endorsement that he left the village and consequently he could not have been attributed with any knowledge of the proceedings. The trial Court presumes the 19th defendant to be having a duty to furnish his new address to the neighbours and also by keeping that address on the doors of the original residence and from what provision or principle of law, the trial Court was able to cast such a duty on the 19th defendant is not known. Though the 20th defendant appears to have been shown on the record as personally served with summons, the claims of the other petitioners including the 18th defendant, who denied his signature on the postal acknowledgment appear to be beyond any scope for non- acceptance. The counter of the plaintiff does not provide any sufficient material to attribute the knowledge of the suit and its proceedings atleast to the other petitioners other than the 20th defendant. The addresses given in the petition show that defendants 18 to 22 are residing at different places and ignorance about the suit and the ex parte judgment and decree in the absence of service of any summons in the suit in respect of defendants 18, 19, 21 and 22 cannot be in dispute. If so, the delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree ought to have been considered to be condoned on appropriate terms. Any such request will be liberally viewed with the ultimate aim of determining the cause on merits but not on default. Therefore, the petition ought to be allowed on appropriate terms. Hence, the order in I.A.No. 650 of 2009 in O.S.No.171 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel dated 17.3.2010 is set aside and the said I.A.No.650 of 2009 will be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the credit of the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Siddipet within four weeks from the date of this order and in default, the petition shall stand dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 2nd July, 2010. Note: Furnish CC within one week. (B/o) PNV