THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2125 of 2011 (Dated : 27-08-2011) Between: Bujjireddy Rajamma W/o late Krishnareddy ….Petitioner A n d Bujjireddy Ramireddy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2125 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 11-02- 2011 in I.A.No.1312 of 2008 in O.S.No.36 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 748 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 16- 12-2005. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.36 of 2005. The petitioner filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule property. Despite service of summons, the defendant failed to enter appearance and consequently, an ex parte decree came to be passed on 16-12-2005. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.64 of 2008 for final decree. After receiving notices in the final decree petition, the respondent-defendant filed petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with delay condonation petition being I.A.No.1312 of 2008. According to the defendant, he came to know of the suit proceedings after receiving notice in the final decree petition. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the delay condonation petition. The plaintiff specifically stated in the counter that the defendant received the summons and failed to appear before the Court. 3. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to condone delay of 748 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 16-12-2005 passed in O.S.No.36 of 2005, by order dated 11-02-2011. Hence this revision by the petitioner-plaintiff. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 01-7-2011. Despite service of notice, the respondent-defendant did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the respondent-defendant has not offered any reasons for condonation of delay of 748 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.36 of 2005 and therefore, the delay condonation petition filed by the respondent-defendant is liable to be dismissed. A further submission has been made that the trial Court has not at all taken into consideration the counter filed by the petitioner-plaintiff resisting the application and thereby, erred in condoning the delay of 748 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 16-12-2005. Learned counsel took me to the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1312 of 2008 to substantiate his contention that the respondent-defendant has not offered any reasons for the delay of 748 days. 7. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.1312 of 2008. The respondent-defendant has not offered any reasons for the delay of 748 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 16-12-2005 in O.S.No.36 of 2005. For better appreciation, I may refer para (2) of the affidavit filed in support of the petition. “ The respondent filed the above suit for partition of the suit schedule mentioned property. The above suit was ex parte decreed on 16-12-2005. Now the respondent filed I.A.64/2008 final decree for partition. After receiving the notices in the final decree, we learnt that there was suit filed and got decreed. We filed set aside ex parte decree petition u/O.9 R.13 C.P.C as we are having good case to be dealt with, with delay of 748 days. The delay in filing the set aside ex parte decree is not willful. There may be abuse of process through out” 8. The trial Court without considering the material brought on record in a right perspective, preceded to condone delay of 748 days. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court condoning delay of 748 days cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 11-02-2011 passed in I.A.No.1312 of 2008. Consequently, I.A.No.1312 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.27-08-2011 *RAR