IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST (31ST) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4222 of 2009 Between: Chapala Gurunadham … Petitioner And: M. Ramachandraiah … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4222 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.07.2009 in IA No.103 of 2006 in OS No.50 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 360 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit OS No.50 of 2004 against the petitioner for specific performance of agreement of sale. The petitioner/defendant was set ex-parte on 04.03.2005 and ex-parte decree was passed. According to the petitioner, from February 2005, he was suffering from jaundice and was undergoing treatment at Tirupati, to where he shifted his residence and that he returned to Srikalahasti on 23.03.2006 after his health improved and that he came to know that the ex-parte decree was passed only after he received notice in E.P.No.47 of 2005 and therefore, filed petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC along with the present application seeking to condone the delay of 360 days in filing the said petition. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that even according to the petitioner he was undergoing treatment only for three months and the delay for the remaining period of nine months is not explained. According to the petitioner, he shifted his residence from Srikalahasthi to Tirupati, where he was undergoing treatment for jaundice and he returned to Srikalahasthi only one year later on 23.03.2006 and therefore, was not aware of passing of the ex-parte decree till he received notice in the execution petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to contest the suit, as it related to valuable rights in the immovable property. 4. In the circumstances and having regard to the fact that the suit is one for specific performance and rights in the immoveable property are involved, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to contest the suit so that the matter may be disposed of on merits, subject to payment of costs by the petitioner to compensate the delay. The impugned order is therefore set aside and consequently, IA No.103 of 2006 is stands allowed, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand rupees) within two weeks to the other side and in default, the order dated 16.07.2009 dismissing the application would stand confirmed. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 31.03.2011 bss