IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3248 OF 2011 Between: Smt. Manukonda Anuradha … Revision Petitioner-Plaintiff V/s. Kampati Venkateswara Rao … Respondent-Defendant Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : Sri Chandrasen Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy The Court made the following : (Order follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3248 OF 2011 O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30-5-2001 passed by the District Judge, Nizamabad, in I.A.No. 3046 of 2010 in OS.No. 53 of 2003. 2. Heard Sri Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Sri C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The Revision Petitioner filed OS.No. 53 of 2003 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Nizamabad, for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,50,000=00 basing on a promissory note. The suit was decreed exparte on 11-7-2005 and subsequently execution petition was filed for recovery of the amount. 4. The respondent filed I.A.No. 3046 of 2010 before the learned District Judge seeking to set aside the exparte decree with a prayer to condone the delay of 1928 days, i.e., 5 years and 28 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. However, the respondent pleaded that the suit notice was not served on him and only after coming to know about the filing of the execution petition on receiving notice when he understood about the decreeing of the suit. 5. The petition was opposed by the Revision Petitioner on the ground that the delay was not properly explained and the petitioner has knowledge about the passing of the decree and the delay shall not be condoned. 6. The learned trial Court after making enquiry into the petition and upon perusing the proceedings noted down in the docket observed that the suit summons were sent to the respondent to the address of the shop run by him and the summons were returned with the endorsement that the shop was sold away by the respondent and his whereabouts were not known. Subsequently the summons were served by substituted service by publication in “Vartha” telugu daily news paper. The learned trial Court further observed that the show cause notice to the petitioner under Order- 21, Rule-37 was served on him on 15-11-2010 in EP.No. 44 of 2010. Whereas he filed the petition to set aside the exparte decree and to stay the execution proceedings on 24-11-2010. The learned District Judge found that the petition was filed within ten days from the date of knowledge of the respondent of passing of the exparte decree against him and expressed the view that if the date of knowledge is taken into consideration, the petition is well within limitation and accordingly set aside the exparte decree passed against the respondent. However, the learned trial Court imposed a condition in the stay petition in I.A.No. 3047 of 2010 that the execution shall be stayed on condition of the respondent depositing suit costs of Rs.one lakh and thereafter it appears that the respondent deposited the said amount and complied with the order passed by the trial court. 7. Having gone through the order passed by the learned trial Court, I do not find any irregularity or illegality committed while passing the order. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the order impugned does not call for any interference in this revision. Consequently the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Revision Petitioner is dismissed at the stage of admission. 8. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Revision Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the suit costs deposited by the respondent. The Revision Petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the learned trial Court in this regard and the trial Court shall dispose of the petition in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 22-09-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3248 OF 2011 CIRCULATION NO. 52 Date: 22-09-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43