THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NOS. 6126 OF 2009 and 827 of 2010 26-03-2010 BETWEEN; Pabisetty Ranga Prasad ...petitioner vs. Dintakurthi Venkata Ratnam And Dintakurthi Kalyani ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NOS. 6126 OF 2009 and 827 of 2010 ORAL COMMON ORDER: The same revision petitioner has filed both the revisions. The petitioner is 2nd defendant in O.S.Nos.41 of 2001 and 49 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the respective suits. The suits were filed for recovery of money on the basis of two promissory notes. The petitioner herein had filed I.A.Nos.1106 of 2007 and 969 of 2007 in the respective suits seeking condonation of 616 days and 955 days respectively in filing applications under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decrees dated 27.09.2004 and 18-11-2004. These applications were dismissed by the trial Court and hence these revisions. The trial Court by the orders dated 29-10-2009 (impugned in the revisions) held that the sole ground urged by the revision petitioner in the interlocutory applications seeking condonation of delay is that his father used to look after all the affairs in the suit and he used to put his signatures as and when his father asked; his father died on 31-03- 2006 and only thereafter his father’s counsel called him and informed him about the personal decree passed against him. The court rejected these contentions by holding that from the perusal of the record of the suits, it is evident that the petitioner’s father had filed the written statement in the main suit in the year 2002; issues were also settled in 2002 and the revision petitioner as the 2nd defendant had also filed a written statement in 2007, along with the petition to condone the delay and that there appeared no satisfactory explanation what-so-ever for condonation of the abnormal delays in filing the applications to set aside the ex parte decree. Though this court is satisfied that the orders of the trial court dismissing the applications filed in the two suits for condonation of abnormal delay in filing applications for setting aside the ex parte decrees, do not suffer from any infirmity warranting revisional interference, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner should be afforded a chance and an opportunity to defend the suits on merits and that the delay be condoned on terms. Smt SAV Ratnam, the learned counsel representing the respondents/plaintiffs contended that there are no grounds for interference in the revision as the trial court rightly found no justification for condoning the abnormal delay as the revision petitioner, in the suits has failed to adduce or putforth any justifiable reasons for condonation of the abnormal delays. This court is satisfied that there is no perversity in the orders of the Court below warranting interference. However, to afford the revision petitioner an opportunity to defend the suits on merits, this court considers it appropriate to allow the revisions on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the decretal amount plus full costs as determined in the ex parte decree in O.S.Nos.41 and 49 of 2001 to the credit of the respective suits within four (4) weeks from today. On such deposit, I.A.Nos.1106 of 2007 and 969 of 2007 in O.S.Nos.41 of 2001 and 49 of 2001 shall be deemed to have been allowed and the orders of the Court below dated 29-10- 2009 are set aside on these terms. On such deposit, the respondents/plaintiffs would be entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. In default by the petitioner in depositing of amounts within the time stipulated, this order allowing revisions and setting aside the two orders dated 29-10-2009 in I.A.Nos.1106 of 2007 and 969 of 2007 in O.S.No.41 and 49 of 2001 shall be inoperative and the revisions shall stand dismissed. These revision petitions are disposed of as above. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 26TH MARCH 2010. TSNR