HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.4537 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed under order 43 Rule 1 CPC against order of dismissal made in I.ANo.2079 of 2004 in O.P.No.180 of 1989 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court dated 17.11.2004. 2. The appellant happened to be the second respondent, and the first respondent happened to be the petitioner and the second respondent happened to be the first respondent in the O.P whereas the second respondent happened to be the petitioner and the other parties happened to be the respondents in the Interlocutory Application. 3. For convenience sake I refer the parties as arrayed in the O.P. The second respondent was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed against him in the O.P. on 08.098.2003. Thereafter the second respondent filed the petition i.e. I.A No.2139 C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree. 4. It is pleaded in the petition filed by him that he was served with notice in the O.P and engaged Sri G. Rajeshwar Rao, advocate as his counsel and in the month of November, 2001 he contacted his counsel to prepare counter on his behalf and thereafter the advocate informed him that he (second respondent) would be called as and when required and therefore he was awaiting the call in the matter from his advocate, but on 14.09.2009 a bailiff of the Third Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court came to his house and enquired about him, as informed by his neighbours and thereafter he made his enquiries and came to know that on 08.09.2003 ex parte decree was passed in the O.P and necessary measures are being taken and hence the ex parte decree is to be set aside. 4. The first respondent filed his counter asserting that, as the 2nd respondent failed to file his counter in the O.P, even though number of adjournments were given to him to do so, he was set ex parte and thereafter the ex parte decree was passed and the pleas taken by the second respondent are not true and there have been latches on the part of second respondent and there are no merits in the petition. 5. It is the observation of enquiry Court on the basis of material available that the circumstances make it very clear that the 2nd respondent has no interest to proceed in the matter and his own pleadings disclosed that he did not take necessary steps to contact his advocate and participate in the proceedings and thus proved latches on his part and therefore there are no merits in the petition and accordingly the petition is dismissed. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the 2nd respondent herein that I.A 2079 of 2004 was dismissed without giving proper reasons and it is further contended by him that as per the relevant F.I.R., registration Number of the vehicle happened to be AP9 2777 Maruthi Car whereas in the claim statement, it was given as AP.9F 2777 without ascertaining any reasons for that discrepancy and further without giving any reasons, an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- was awarded in the claim petition, which is not tenable and under these circumstances, it is necessary to allow the appeal and set aside the ex parte order passed and remand the matter to the Lower Court for necessary consideration. 7. No representation has been made on behalf of the opposite party and hence his side arguments are closed. 8. Therefore it is to be mainly examined as to whether sufficient reasons are given in order to uphold the contention of the 2nd respondent. 9. The circumstances enumerated by the 2nd respondent in this petition amply provide that having engaged advocate in the O.P he failed to take necessary measures and there is no basis that his advocate asked him to wait for his call and he was waiting for the call but he did not receive the call and subsequently he came to know about the passing of ex parte decree and taking up the consequential measures. It is significant that it happened to be an O.P of 1999 and still it has not been disposed of finally as the result of which the petitioner has to suffer in many ways particularly when his claim is a genuine one. 10. Further in the claim petition, the registration number of the crime vehicle was given as AP.9F 2777. At first, it was claimed in the O.P that the 1st respondent was the owner of the vehicle and by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle the petitioner was hit by that vehicle and he received serious injuries and he became totally disabled person with a plea to award the compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-. But subsequently the 2nd respondent was added as party to the petition on the ground that in fact the vehicle was transferred in the name of 2nd respondent before the date of accident and he was only liable to pay the compensation claimed. 11. On behalf of the petitioner, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and got examined another person as AW2 and got marked exhibits Exs.A1 to A16 and further on behalf of their respondent, he got examined himself as RW1 and got marked exhibits Exs.B1 – B2 and basing upon the material available, the enquiry Court allowed the application so far as the 2nd respondent is concerned while dismissing the claim against the 1st respondent who contested the matter. But, it is pertinent to note that without making any discussion about the actual question of compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- under various heads to be paid and also without discussing about the discrepancy with regards to the vehicle numbers, the Tribunal passed its order for the said amount. 12. Even the ex parte decree passed against a party is to be based on sound reasoning with reference to relevant evidence adduced. In other words when it does not speak about the said aspects it cannot be said to be a speaking and correct order. Therefore when the order is not proper it is not reasonable to execute it against the 2nd respondent who is liable to pay the amount only on justifiable grounds. Just because he failed to participate in the O.P. and there were latches on his part it is harsh to direct him to pay the amount under any circumstances. 13. In the result the appeal is allowed and the ex parte decree passed against the respondent is set aside and the enquiry court is directed to take necessary measures for the disposal of the matter within 3 months as it has become old. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 17.02.2011 SP HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.4537 OF 2004 17-02-2011 SP