(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the Judgement an Decree in OS.No.123/2015, dated 2-04-2016 on the file of the principal district judge at Kurnool, and the orders in IA.No.23/2018 dated 13-03-2019 in OS.No.123/2015 and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 277 days in filing the present CRP ,against the order dt 13-03-2019 in I.A.No.231 of 2018 in OS No.123 of 2015 on the file of Principle District Judge at kurnool and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all proceedings in OS.No.123/2015 on the file of the principal district judge at Kurnool, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 21.02.2022 in CRP.No.760 of 2021 until further orders and pass)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2019 passed in IA.No.231 of 2018 in OS.No.123 of 2015 by the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge dismissed I.A.No.231 of 2018, which was filed seeking condonation of the delay of 512 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.125 of 2015. It is further submitted that another application seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree was also filed, and the same is pending. It is submitted that the I.A.No.231 of 2018 was dismissed primarily on the ground that the learned Judge had held that the petitioner was appearing in cases registered for the alleged offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in CC.No. 582 of 2016 and CC.No.150 of 2017 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, and that while the petitioner was regularly appearing in those cases, he failed to pursue the suit proceedings. As such, the learned Judge held that the petitioner cannot claim that he was not aware of the suit proceedings. On these grounds, the learned Judge dismissed the interlocutory application, as no justifiable or sufficient grounds were raised by the petitioner for seeking the relief of condonation of delay of 512 days.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner had initially filed Vakalat on behalf of the defendant and was also represented by counsel. However, the petitioner failed to file the written statement and thereafter evaded to pursue the suit. It is further submitted that the petition filed seeking condonation of delay was filed without explaining the reasons for the delay, and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the same, and the orders passed by the learned Judge need not be interfered with.

4. It is also submitted that the decree is now transferred to the learned III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, and is pending consideration in Execution Proceedings. This Court, while admitting the present Civil Revision Petition, initially granted an interim stay of all further proceedings for a period of eight weeks, which has been extended from time to time, and as on date, the interim order granted has been extended.

5. Considering the submissions made, it is evident that the suit was filed in the year 2015 and an ex-parte decree was passed on 22.04.2016. The application filed for setting aside the ex-parte order could not be considered further on account of dismissal of IA.No.231 of 2018. On account of dismissal of I.A.No.231 of 2018, which was filed seeking to condone the delay of 512 days, the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is still pending consideration at the C.F.R. stage.

6. Considering the submissions and also after perusing the record, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

7. Accordingly, the order passed in IA.No.231 of 2018 in OS.No.123 of 2015 by the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, is hereby set aside. This view is taken primarily considering the submission that the District Court Complex and the Special Magistrate Complex are not situated in the same premises. The petitioner was relying upon the counsel engaged by him for representation, and on account of the counsel not properly updating him, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is working in a bank, he was unable to effectively follow up the proceedings.

8. This Court deems it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits. However, considering that the suit is pending from the year 2015, the learned Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the suit on merits within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of this order.

9. The application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC shall be taken up for consideration in accordance with law. Soon after passing appropriate orders in the Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the petitioner shall file the writ statement without any further delay if not already filed for facilitation of early disposal of suit on merits.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.