THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.3647 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition has been filed aggrieved by order dated 07.06.2010 passed in I.A. No.39 of 2010 in O.S. No.95 of 2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. The revision petitioners and the respondents herein are the defendants and the plaintiffs, respectively. At the out set, the respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S. No.95 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad against the revision petitioners/defendants for recovery of Rs.1,53,852/- and the learned Senior Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009 decreed the suit with costs observing that the revision petitioners/defendants remained ex parte. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners/defendants filed I.A. No.39 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking to condone the delay of 177 days to set aside the ex parte decree dated 29.07.2009 passed against them and the same was dismissed holding that there are no reasonable grounds and justifiable reasons to allow the petition. Assailing the same, the revision petitioners/defendants preferred the present revision petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that there was no proper notice was served upon them. Therefore, the revision petitioners were not present before the Court below, at the relevant point of time, and the Court below had passed ex parte decree against them. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners filed I.A. No.39 of 2010 on the ground that they were residing in old own house situated at Subash Nagar, Nizamabad and the same was mortgaged with possession. They do not know the summons was served to their previous address. After verification of suit by their counsel summons was served on their previous address, but summons was not served on persons concerned. There are many chances to win the suit on the part of the revision petitioners/defendants. It is also submitted that non appearance of the petitioners before the Court below in the year 2009 was neither intentional nor deliberate and the ex parte decree passed in the suit may be set aside by applying principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity to establish their case. It is further submitted that when the suit summons are not served, the question of explaining day to day delay does not arise. Therefore, in view of the above, this revision may be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the revision petitioners have not explained the day to day delay caused in filing to set aside ex parte decree. He also submitted that there is 177 days delay in filing the application but no proper reasons have been assigned for such inordinate delay. It is also submitted that the revision petitioners/defendants knowing fully well about filing of suit and serving of notice through the bailiff only they locked the door and went away. Therefore, he submitted that the Court below had rightly dismissed the application as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the revision petition. Under the above circumstances, what is to be seen in this revision whether there is any justifiable ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below? There is no dispute with regard to the factual position. The main grievance of the revision petitioners is that the summons was not served upon them, but on verification of suit by their counsel, summons was served on their previous address. Therefore, they did not appear before the Court below, where the ex parte decree was passed against them. Immediately after knowing of passing the ex parte decree, they rushed to the Court below and by the time of filing application, there was 177 days delay caused, which is neither intention nor wanton. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that when the main contention of the revision petitioners is that they have no knowledge about serving summons and there is no proof that the summons is served on the persons except saying that the bailiff got the endorsement of affixer in the presence of revision petitioners, I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused if an opportunity is given to the revision petitioners to prove their case. Accordingly, order dated 07.06.2010 passed in I.A. No.39 of 2010 in O.S. No.95 of 2009 is set aside on payment of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) to the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, within two weeks from today. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. _____________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 01.10.2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in two days. B/o. LSK