IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4414 of 2010 Between: Karingu China Chandraiah and others ... PETITIONERS a n d Karingu Pedda Mallaiah and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 30-4-2010 passed in I.A.No.1002 of 2009 in O.S.No.99 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.99 of 2008. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the suit schedule property. The preliminary decree came to be passed on 19-11-2008. Subsequently, the defendants filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte decree. They also moved I.A.No.1002 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 340 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 19-11-2008 in O.S.No.99 of 2008. 3. Fourth defendant has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is stated in the affidavit that the respondents/plaintiffs agreed to settle the disputes between them before the village elders and well-wishers and therefore, he could not instruct his Advocate for filing written statement. Subsequently, he came to know of the exparte decree dated 19- 11-2008 and therefore, the petition has been filed to set aside the ex parte decree along with delay condonation petition. 4. Plaintiffs filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter that the petitioners/defendants did not file written statement within 90 days as per the amended Code of Civil Procedure and consequently, an ex parte order came to be passed against them. 5. Neither party adduced evidence before the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioners/defendants failed to offer reasonable grounds for their failure to appear before the Court and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, by order dated 30-04-2010. Hence, this revision. 6. The respondents/plaintiffs entered appearance through a counsel. On 27-10-2010 when the revision came up for consideration there was no representation on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs. Subsequently, five adjournments have been granted so as to give an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. Despite granting many adjournments, none appears on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendants and perused the material brought on record. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have specifically pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condition petition that the respondents/plaintiffs agreed to settle the matter before the village elders and well-wishers. A further submission has made that the respondents/plaintiffs have not filed verified counter controverting the assertion made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. 9. I have gone through the counter filed by the respondents in I.A.No.1002 of 2009. The counter is signed by the counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners have specifically pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the respondents agreed for dissolution of the disputes between them before elders. Such is the assertion, it is for the respondents/plaintiffs to deny the same and not for the counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. There being no such denial of the pleading as contemplated under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plea of the petitioners with regard to the respondents/plaintiffs agreeing for settlement of disputes through the elders deserves to be accepted. 10. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioners offered sufficient reasons for the delay in filing petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the revision is allowed setting aside the order dated 30-04-2010. Consequently, I.A.No.1002 of 2009 in O.S.No.99 of 2008 stands allowed. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J November 12, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4414 of 2010 November 12, 2010