HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2361 OF 2006 Dated 23rd June, 2011 Between: Varanasi Lakshmi .. Petitioner A N D State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Palakonda and others .. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2361 OF 2006 ORDER: The revision is filed against order in I.A.No.80 of 2003 in O.S.No.6 of 1999 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, dismissing the application to condone the delay of 1157 days in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 16- 12-1999. 2. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that no proper explanation for the delay was given and in fact there was a personal service on the revision petitioner and the delay cannot be condoned. But however, the events on the record shows that in pursuance of the decree a sale is said to have been held for realization of the decretal debt in E.P.No.16 of 2001 and the petitioner herein has filed E.A.No.29 of 2003 to set aside the sale on ground of material irregularities under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code and against the dismissal of the said application A.A.O.No.410 of 2006 is filed before this Court and this Court in its order dated 06-02-2007 allowed the appeal and set aside the sale. Therefore, the execution proceedings are said to be still pending. 3. The complaint of the revision petitioner is that the property is worth Rs.20,00,000/- and it was sought to be knocked out for a small sum. But however, they are defendants in the original suit and mortgage is not disputed before this Court or in the lower Court. 4. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, to protect the interest of the bank and also to protect the interest of the petitioner and other defendants, I feel that the ends of justice would meet if the petitioner is directed to deposit the entire decretal amount and costs due with interest till the date of deposit in the lower Court along with written statement and on such deposit the delay shall be deemed to have been condoned and the ex-parte decree shall be set aside, and trial can be conducted by the lower Court by giving opportunity. It is needless to say that the plaintiff being a bank, the amount so deposited can be permitted to be withdrawn since in case the plaintiff bank is to fail the restitution can be easily obtained by the revision petitioner. 5. Therefore, with the above directions the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. The revision petitioner shall deposit the said amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from today after giving notice to the counsel for the plaintiff in the lower Court. The lower Court shall dispose of the case within four months thereafter. 6. In case of any default in depositing the said amount, no further request will be entertained and the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands confirmed. In case the decree is set aside by following the directions of this Court, the auction purchaser can be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by him. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO June 23, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. in three (3) days. B/o.Pn HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2361 of 2006 June 23, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. in three (3) days. B/o.Pn