THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5359 of 2010 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.693 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole against the petitioner and his son, respondent No.2 herein for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 09.08.1999, in respect of the suit schedule property. After receiving summons, the petitioner filed written statement. However, respondent No.2 was s et ex parte. He filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., but the same was dismissed on 12.08.2009. On 26.08.2009, the petitioner herein was set ex parte. Thereafter, an ex parte decree was passed on 10.09.2009. Stating that he was not aware of the dates of hearing in the suit, particularly when I.A.No.1482 of 2009 filed by his son under Order 9 Rule 13 was undergoing various stages, he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 23 days in filing the application, he filed I.A.No.1 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application was opposed by respondent No.1. The trail Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 31.08.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. The delay involved is 23 days in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The petitioner has stated that on account of the pendency of I.A.No.1482 of 2009, he could not notice the progress in the suit, particularly since notice in that I.A. was not served upon his counsel. This part of the averment of the petitioner is not seriously disputed. May be since he is not a contesting party in that I.A., he was not put on notice. All the same, he could not keep track of the proceedings in that I.A. The trial Court made a mention about the proceedings that have taken place prior to the dismissal of I.A.No.1482 of 2009 on 12.08.2009. For instance, by referring to the endorsement made on I.A.No.1223 of 2009, filed by respondent No.1 for receiving the documents, for cross-examination and for payment of costs that took place in 2009, the trial Court disbelieved the version of the petitioner. That, hardly, is of any relevance, once the petitioner states that the various steps on I.A.No.1482 of 2009 hindered the progress of the suit and he was not aware of the dates of hearing subsequent to 12.08.2009. When there exists an element of uncertainty as to the nature of service of notice in various I.As., the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity. The delay of 23 days cannot be treated as considerable in the context of an application being filed by a defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Further, the trial Court did not refer to any other evidence except the one of P.W1 in decreeing the suit. Time and again, this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even where the defendants remain ex parte, the plaintiff is not relieved of his obligation to prove his case. This Court is satisfied that the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. As a result, the delay is condoned. Except where extraordinary circumstances exist, the reasons that weigh with the Court for condonation of delay would be sufficient for setting aside the ex parte decree also. To pave the way for early disposal of the suit, I.A.No.1482 of 2009 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is also allowed and the ex parte decree is set aside. The petitioner shall participate in the trial and cooperate with the Court for early disposal of the suit. The suit shall be disposed of as early as possible and not later than 31.12.2011. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt.14.07.2011. kdl