HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2360 and 2375 OF 2007 DATED 5TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Siraboina Janardhan ….Petitioner in both CRPs and Uppala Nageshwar Rao ….Respondents in both CRPS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2360 and 2375 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: Inasmuch as the petitioner and facts involved in both the petitions are one and the same, these two Civil Revision Petitions can be heard together and disposed of by this common order. The petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions is the defendant in the main suit. He ﬁled Civil Revision Petition No. 2360 of 2007 questioning the correctness of the order dated 27.4.2007 passed in I.A.No. 121 of 2007 in O.S.No. 603 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Whereas, Civil Revision Petition No. 2375 of 2007 is ﬁled questioning the correctness of the order dated 15.2.2007 passed in EA.No. 16 of 2007 in E.P.No. 168 of 2006 in O.S.No. 603 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Brief facts of the case are that: the respondent/plaintiﬀ ﬁled the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant for the recovery of amount based on promissory note. However, suit summons, according to the petitioner, were not served on him directly. It is stated in the aﬃdavit that he was informed that his brother-in-law received summons in EP and that there was an endorsement stating that earlier summons were aﬃxed to the door of his house as he was out of station and though the same was informed by his wife, an endorsement was made stating that his wife refused to take summons. Therefore the Court treating the same as suﬃcient service notice, passed an ex parte decree. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiﬀ ﬁled execution proceedings. Coming to know of the same, the petitioner/defendant immediately ﬁled EA. No. 16 of 2006 for stay of execution proceedings and I.A.No. 121 pf 2007 to condone the delay of 267 days in ﬁling the petition to set aside the judgment dated 13.3.2006. The Court below dismissed both the petitions. Hence these two revision petitions. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the material on record, the only question that arise for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for relief in these revision petitions. The suit is laid on the foot of promissory note for recovery of money. The petitioner did not appear in the suit since there is substitute of service of notice aﬃxing on the door of his house as his wife refused to receive the same on the ground that the petitioner is out of station. It is stated that the petitioner is working as Police Constable in the Police Department. The petitioner ﬁled the impugned applications only after he came to know of the proceedings. As he was not aware of the suit proceedings being working as police constable in diﬀerent place, he has no chance to putforth his case in the suit. Having regard to the same and also fact that suit has been disposed of ex parte, it is more desirable in the interest of justice to aﬀord one more opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to put forth his case. In that view of the matter, the orders under revision are set aside. I.A.No. 121 of 2007 and E.A. No. 16 of 2007 ﬁled by the petitioner to condone the delay and to stay all further proceedings in the execution proceedings respectively are allowed, subject to condition of the petitioner depositing half of the decreetal amount within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondent/plaintiﬀ is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. It is made clear that failure to deposit the half of the decreetal amount as directed above, the Civil Revision Petitions shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court. Civil Revision Petitions are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO Dated 5th August, 2010. Msnr.