THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.6265 of 2003 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.215 of 1999 in the Court of XIII Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed ex parte, on 28.09.2002. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 128 days in presenting that application, it filed I.A.No.231 of 2003 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The 1st respondent opposed the application. Through its order, dated 14.08.2003, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P. Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no summons were served upon the petitioner and the trial Court has recorded certain findings, which are self-contradictory. He contends that the 2nd respondent is an independent agency and representation by it cannot be treated as the one on behalf of the petitioner. The notice sent to the 1st respondent to the address furnished in the suit was returned with an endorsement “unclaimed”. Hence, the same deserves to be treated as adequate service. The 2nd respondent was served with notice and there was no representation for him. The petitioner specifically pleaded that, it did not receive summons in the suit. Except stating that there is an endorsement that the summons were served, it is not even mentioned by the trial Court as to who received the summons and on what date. One ground, which weighed with the trial Court, was that the 2nd respondent is a sister-concern of the petitioner and he is also an authorized signatory of the petitioner. Even for this, no basis is indicated. The petitioner is a corporate personality, having its own independent existence. The appearance of the 2nd respondent cannot be treated as the one, on behalf of the petitioner. While admitting the C.R.P., this Court granted interim stay, way back on 26.04.2004. No application was filed by the 1st respondent for vacating the interim order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. This Court is satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner. Hence, I.A.No.231 of 2003 shall stand allowed. The trial Court shall proceed to take up the application, under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., and decide the same on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:07.08.2009. GJ