THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2447 OF 2010 Dated: 04.02.2011 Between: Satti Suguna ..... Petitioner AND Padala Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy and others .....Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2447 OF 2010 ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.04.2010 in I.A.No.881 of 2004 in O.S.No.23 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku. The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant whereas the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the defendants 1 and 3 respectively. The respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale and it was decreed ex parte on 30.12.2003. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/2nd defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree along with I.A.No.881 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 223 days in filing the said application. It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that she was at Doha Qatar for six years and she returned to India only on 24.07.2004 and then she came to know about the ex parte decree. It is also pleaded that no notice was served on her before filing the suit and even the suit summons were not served on her. The said petition was opposed by the plaintiff. Though it was found that the suit summons were not served on the petitioner, the Court below dismissed the application observing that the summons were served on the 1st defendant, who is none other than the mother of the 2nd defendant. It was also found that there was an order to serve the summons through the mother of the 2nd defendant/revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.04.2010, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 2nd defendant. Despite notice, none appeared for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The material available on record shows that on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, the Court below had recorded a finding of fact that by the time of filing the suit the 2nd defendant/revision petitioner was not in India. Admittedly the suit summons were served only on the mother of the 2nd defendant. Since the same cannot be taken as valid service of summons, there is no reason to presume that the 2nd defendant had knowledge about the suit proceedings. The specific case of the petitioner is that she returned to India only on 24.07.2004 and immediately thereafter on 13.09.2004 the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. has been filed. Thus, the delay has been properly explained and therefore, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay. Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside and I.A.No.881 of 2004 in O.S.No.23 of 2003 is hereby allowed by condoning the delay of 223 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date : 04.02.2011 Note: Issue CC in two days (B/o) Ivd