IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2299 of 2010 Between: Kota Rupakumari ..... Petitioner AND Perla Venkata Kameswara Umasankar .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T. Raja Sekhar Rao Counsel for the respondent: Sri A. Rama Rao The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2299 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 08.02.2010 in I.A.No.567 of 2009 in O.S.No.168 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. I have heard Sri T. Raja Sekhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is the defendant in the abovementioned O.S. The respondent filed the said suit for recovery of Rs.3,40,000/- on the foot of a promissory note. Despite service of notice through substitute service, the petitioner did not appear leading to passing of ex-parte decree on 17.12.2008. Along with the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, an application for condonation of delay of 245 days in filing the said application is filed. The said application for condonation of delay was numbered as I.A.No.567 of 2009. The Court below, after considering the rival pleas of the parties, dismissed the I.A. with the finding that the petitioner failed to offer satisfactory explanation for causing delay of 245. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on receipt of the notice in the suit by his client, she approached the respondent, who was stated to have promised her not to contest the case as they will compromise and that believing the words of the respondent, she neither appeared in response to the court’s notice before passing of the ex-parte decree nor taken immediate steps to file an application for setting aside the said decree. The learned counsel stated that as the parties could not compromise, the petitioner filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree with condone delay application. The learned counsel for the respondent seriously opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regard the reasons offered by the petitioner, the finding of the Court below that they do not constitute satisfactory explanation for the delay, does not suffer from any error. But, at the same time, the Courts should show a somewhat liberal approach in considering the applications for condonation of delay though such liberal approach should not lead to abuse of process of Court by the vexatious litigants. Though this Court is not fully convinced with the reasons offered by the petitioner, taking a somewhat lenient view, it is felt appropriate to give one chance to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits subject to her depositing 1/3rd of the decreetal amount to the credit of the suit in the Court below within a period of two weeks from today. The ex-parte decree will stand set aside on the petitioner depositing the said amount within the above stipulated time and thereupon the Court below shall resume the suit from the stage where it was decreed in accordance with law. If the petitioner fails to make such deposit, the ex-parte decree stands confirmed. Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the revision, CRPMP.No.3086 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.12.2010 ES