IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.3377 and 3378 OF 2010 C.R.P.No.3377 OF 2010 Between:- Rokkam Venkata Rao and another …Petitioners A n d Jetti Appa Rao …Respondent A N D C.R.P.No.3378 OF 2010 Between:- Rokkam Venkata Rao and another …Petitioners A n d Jetti Appa Rao …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.3377 & 3378 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.3377 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 11-06-2010 in I.A.No.1317 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2004, on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners/defendants for condoning the delay of 911 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 19-04-2006, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.3378 of 2010 is filed against the order dated 11-06-2010 in I.A.No.1318 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2004, on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was also dismissed, in view of dismissal of I.A.No.1317 of 2009, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioners for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Notice was served in the suit on the petitioners/defendants by way of substituted service through paper publication. Thereafter, ex parte decree was passed on 19-04-2006. The petitioners filed an application under order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree in the year 2009. They also filed I.A.No.1317 of 2009 for condoning the delay of 911 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner was suffering from paralysis and was undergoing treatment at Kerala and so he was not aware of the passing of the ex parte decree against him. The petitioner did not adduce any medical evidence to show that he was undergoing treatment at Kerala for paralysis and that the second petitioner was attending on the first petitioner. He filed a medical certificate issued by Sri Bhavana Medical Centre, Visakhapatnam on 12-11-2008, which was subsequent to filing of I.A.No.1317 of 2009. The said certificate does not disclose any details as to the nature or period of the treatment, apart from the fact that the contents thereof are not proved at all. The learned District Judge has rightly rejected the said certificate, as the same does not satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks an opportunity to adduce necessary medical evidence in support of the plea that the first petitioner was laid up with paralysis and was undergoing treatment at Kerala during the relevant period and the second petitioner was attending on him. 5. Having regard to the nature of the suit, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioners to adduce necessary medical evidence to prove their plea pertaining to the delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. In that view of the matter, the impugned order in C.R.P.No.3377 of 2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Judge, Vizianagaram to give an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their respective contentions and dispose of I.A.No.1317 of 2009 afresh in accordance with law. 6. In view of the orders passed in C.R.P.No.3377 of 2010, remanding the matter for fresh disposal, the impugned order in C.R.P.No.3378 of 2010 is also set aside. 7. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 03rd September, 2010 Lrkm.