THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.594 and 662 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.263 of 2002 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole against the petitioner for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 29.10.1995. An ex parte decree was passed on 10.11.2003. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1243 of 2009 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of about 2000 days, he filed I.A.No.1242 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone the delay. The applications were resisted by the respondent. Through a common order, dated 20.12.2010, the trial Court dismissed both the applications. Hence, these two revisions. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner was a resident of Ongole at one point of time, he has shifted his residence to Chirala and the summons in the suit were not served upon him at all. He further submits that the respondent did not take any steps to furnish the correct address and instead, has chosen to cause service of notice by publication in a news paper and the petitioner did not notice the same. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner came to know about the ex pate decree in the month of July, 2009 and soon thereafter, he has taken steps to file the application to set aside the ex parte decree. He contends that the trial Court has taken a hyper-technical view of the matter, though it was convinced that the summons were not served upon the petitioner. Sri M.Venkatanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not leave any information as to the change of address and his client was left with no alternative except to cause the service of notice through publication. He contends that even after the petitioner came to know the ex parte decree, he did not take prompt steps and that since the delay is enormous and unexplained, no exception can be taken to the orders under the revisions. The suit filed by the respondent was the one for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. In the plaint, the address of the petitioner was shown as though he is a resident of Ongole Town. The fact, however, remains that much before the suit was filed, the petitioner shifted his residence to Chirala. It is no doubt true that substituted service through publication was affected. However, an ex parte decree passed on the basis of substituted service needs to be viewed with a bit of caution. In fact, the trial Court also felt that the service was not effective upon the petitioner. What weighed with the trial Court in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner is that he did not take steps immediately after he came to know about the ex parte decree. It may be true that the petitioner did not file the applications within one month from the date of knowledge. However, it must not be ignored that the petitioner shifted his residence to Chirala and it would be difficult for him to engage an Advocate, secure necessary information and ultimately arrange for filing of the applications. He has pleaded grounds of financial difficulties and indebtedness as the reasons for shifting the residence. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the delay is condoned on payment of costs partly to the respondent and partly to the Advocate. Hence, the civil revision petitions are allowed on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the respondent and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to his Advocate before this Court. The payment has been made across the Bar and the same is acknowledged. The learned counsel for the respondent shall ensure that the distribution is arranged as directed above. Since the grounds that weigh with the Court for condonation of delay would hold good for setting aside the ex parte decree also, both the applications are allowed as prayed for. In case the petitioner has not filed any written statement as yet, he shall file it within four weeks from today. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit with utmost expedition. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.10.2011 kdl