THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3721 of 2011 (Dated: 21-10-2011) Between: R.Doraiswamy W/o Rangaswamy …Petitioners A n d M/s.J.S.Traders rep. by its Proprietor And another ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3721 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 20-10- 2008 passed in I.A.No.920 of 2007 in O.S.No.6 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendants 1, 2 and 5 to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27-11-2003. 2. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 2003. It filed the suit against the petitioners herein and two others for recovery of Rs.4,19,110/-. The suit ended in decree on 27-11-2003. The Decree-holder filed execution petition and got the decree transferred to the file of Senior Civil Judge, Coiambattaore, as per orders in E.A.No.224 of 2004 for execution. The said execution petition was taken on file as E.P.No.336 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Coiambattore. 3. Defendants 1, 2 and 5 filed petition to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that they came to know of the ex parte decree on 29-6-2007. They also moved I.A.No.920 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC to condone delay of 1301 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27- 11-2003. The 2nd defendant has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the delay condonation petition. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the defendants 1, 2 and 5 failed to offer sufficient reasons for condoning delay of 1301 days, by order dated 20th October, 2008. Hence, this revision by defendants 2 and 5. 5. Notice to the respondents came to be ordered on 26-6- 2009. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are only Directors of the 1st defendant company and their liability is limited by shares held by them in the 1st defendant company and therefore, granting personal decree against the 1st petitioner is not legal and proper. A further submission has been made that the petitioners came to know of the ex parte decree on 29-6- 2007 and they presented petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with delay condonation petition on 27-7-2007. In a way, his contention is that the petitioners on coming to know of the ex parte decree acted quickly and therefore, there are no laches on the part of the petitioners. In support of his submissions; reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantanag v. Mst. Katiji and others[1], wherein it has been held that the Court should adopt liberal approach in condoning the delay. 8. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners having entered appearance in the suit did not choose to contest the same for the reasons best known and therefore, it is impermissible for them to contend that they were not aware of the decree being passed in O.S.No.66 of 2003 till 29-6-2007. 9. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The learned senior civil judge has verified the records and noticed that the petitioners entered appearance through a counsel and sought time for filing written statement. For the reasons best known to the petitioners, they did not choose to file written statement and contest the suit. For better appreciation, I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order impugned in the revision, which reads as hereunder:- “ As seen from the records the defendants 1 and 2 appeared through advocate on 10.02.2008 but failed to file their written statement and in spite of several adjournments and ultimately defendants 1 and 2 were set ex parte on 19.11.2003. The 5th defendant refused to take notice and accordingly the service was held sufficient and 5th defendant was set ex parte on 21.4.2003. 10. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition, the petitioners are silent of their engaging advocate and seeking time for filing written statement. It is explicit that the petitioners suppressed material facts in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioners failed to make out any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the revision in exercise of powers under Section 115 CPC. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 26-06-2009 shall stand vacated. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.21-10-2011 *RAR [1] AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1353