(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 tomay be pleased to set aside the order dt. 23.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.886 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ongole and consequently allow the I.A.No.886 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ongole by restoring the suit to its original state and to pass such.)

1. The present C.R.P. is filed aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.886 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole wherein the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 128 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 20.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.31 of 2018 was dismissed.

2. Petitioner herein is defendant and respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. For the convenience of this Court the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 03.06.2015 to direct the defendant/petitioner herein to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein with regard to the plaint scheduled property. If the defendant/petitioner herein failed to execute the registered sale deed, permit the plaintiff/respondent herein to obtain registered sale deed trough Court under due process of law. Even though the sole defendant/petitioner herein appeared before the trial Court through counsel but no written statement was filed within the time. Even after the Court below had granted time in number of occasions for filing written statement, but for one reason or the other the defendant/petitioner herein did not choose to file the written statement within statutory period i.e., by 04.06.2018. Therefore, the defendant/petitioner herein was set ex-parte for non-filing of written statement. While so, after completion of trial and an ex-parte decree was passed on 20.01.2023. Thereafter the defendant/petitioner filed petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 20.01.2023 vide I.A.No.886 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 with a delay of 128 days under Section 5 of Limitation Act. After enquiry and after hearing both parties, the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 128 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 20.01.2023 was dismissed on 23.07.2025 and the same was assailed before this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Learned counsel for defendant/petitioner herein submits that the defendant residing out of village for the purpose of education of his children and eking out his livelihood, due to which he could not contacted his counsel. Then when he was returned to his village on 29.06.2023 he was informed about the ex-parte order dated 20.01.2023. He further submits that the defendant/petitioner herein has good case to succeed in the suit and the defendant/petitioner herein also filed detailed written statement along with application under Order 9 Rule 13 vide I.A.No.886/2023 with a delay of 128 days i.e., from 21.02.2023 to 29.06.2023. The subject delay is neither willful nor wanton but the reasons as stated above. But the Court below erroneously dismissed the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act on the ground that the defendant/petitioner herein approached the court with malafide intention only to protract the litigation without showing sufficient cause for not filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex-parte decree in time and no cogent reasons were stated for such enormous delay. As such, the conclusion of the Court below is contrary to law and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Prabhakar Rao vs. Sama Mahipal Reddy and another(2025 INSC 311) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

                  “11. To start with, facts and events relating to passing of an ex- parte decree are distinct from the facts and events relating to the delayed filing of the application for setting aside of the ex-parte decree. Secondly, the procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree will again be distinct from the procedure for condoning the delayed filing of the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. Thirdly, the adjudication and determination of a court with respect to setting aside the ex-parte decree are independent of the adjudication with respect to condoning the delay. Finally, the remedies against these orders are independent and one remedy would not subsume the other. They must be adopted and pursued independently. This much of clarity is sufficiently borne by our practice and procedure of law. The order passed by the High Court setting aside the ex-parte decree when no revision is filed against the said order of theTrialCourt in I.A.No.1163of2021cannot be sustained.

                  12. The substantive part of the judgment of the High Court relates to reasons justifying the condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. For this purpose, the High Court has examined the contents of I.A. No. 493 of 2021 filed by the respondents and came to the conclusion that there is a justifiable reason to condone the delay. The High Court took into account the explanation given in paragraph 4 which is as under:

                  “4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is diligent in prosecuting the case as he filed the present application immediately after receiving the summons in E.P. No. 401 of 2019. Petitioner has not chosen to remain exparte and was pursuing the same with his advocate on record, but the status of the same was not updated to the petitioner. Petitioner was given due instructions to the counsel on record in the lower Court for preparation and filing of the written statement. The substantial rights of the petitioner are involved in the property, and great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the application filed by the petitioner is dismissed without according an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.”

                  13. In view of the above, the High Court proceeded to condone the delay after noting that the property is valuable and that the respondents father and daughter must have at least one opportunity to contest the suit. The relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court is as under:

                  “7. Perusal of the agreement shows that there was a condition to pay the balance amount within two months. The trial Court granted exparte decree without considering the cancellation of the document by defendants as they have not filed a written statement. This Court finds that substantial rights of petitioner herein are involved in the suit. No doubt there was a delay on the part of the petitioner. Though he instructed the counsel to file the written statement he could not verify whether his counsel filed the written statement or not and kept quiet till he received the notice in the E.P. In fact he filed the Vakalat filed in the year 2016 and he was set exparte on 20.08.2018 and he engaged another counsel on 24.03.2021 and filed the I.A in April, 2021. The suit is filed in the year 2016and the written statement was not filed even after granting opportunity. The trial court decreed the suit. No doubt there are latches in the part of the petitioner herein that he could not verify whether his counsel filed written statement or not and he could not verify the status of the case in the website. However, he should be given reasonable opportunity to pursue the suit for specific performance as he is the owner of the land and plaintiffs entered into agreement with him for purchase of the land and paid less than 50% of the amount, and still has to pay the balance amount. Considering the facts, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the order of the trial Court and grant an opportunity to the petitioner herein to file a written statement and file a counter immediately before the trial Court.

                  8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 29.09.2023, passed in I.A. No. 493 of 2021 in O.S. No. 150 of 2016 on costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, Sangareddy within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the suit is of the year 2016, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of this order, and both parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for the disposal of the suit within the stipulated time. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 deposited the amount at the time of E.P., and they are at liberty to file an application before the trial Court for withdrawal of the same. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.”

                  16. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding of the High Court that there is a justifiable reason for condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex- parte decree is affirmed. The conclusion of the High Court that the suit is restored is set aside. We revive I.A. No. 1163 of 2021 and direct the Trial Court to take up said application and dispose it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of the receipt of this order.”

                  Learned counsel submits that if the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act not allowed, the defendant/petitioner herein will be put to irreparable loss and hardship which amounts to allowing the decree without hearing the defendant/petitioner herein. Therefore, the impugned order of Court below liable to be set aside. He further submits that leaving out of the village for his livelihood is certainly sufficient cause was shown by the defendant/petitioner herein to condone the delay of 128 days in filing petition under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the ex-parte decree. Therefore, the order passed in I.A.No.886/2023 in O.S.No.31/2018 is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent herein submit the defendant/petitioner herein is a permanent resident of his village and never left the village prior to filing of the suit or after filing of the suit and till today. He further submits that the contention of the defendant/petitioner herein that he left the village for eke out his livelihood in the year 2018 and he returned to the village after five years i.e., on 29.06.2023 is contrary to the facts, in fact the defendant/petitioner herein never left the village and there is a criminal case filed against the petitioner in the meantime. Pending suit proceedings the defendant/petitioner herein bet the plaintiff/respondent herein at the suit schedule property and caused injuries to him. Therefore, the Crime No.23/2019 was registered on the file of Maddipadu PS and defendant/petitioner herein was arrested on 25.02.2019 and later he enlarged on bail and charge-sheet was also filed and numbered as CC No.292/2019 and the defendant/petitioner herein regularly had been attended pending criminal case before the Criminal Court. Therefore, these evidences clearly falsifies the contention of the petitioner that he already left the village and living at distance place. Therefore, the defendant/petitioner herein not fair in explaining due reasons to condone the delay of 128 days in filing petition under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the ex-parte decree. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent further submits that the ex- parte orders passed on 20.01.2023, but the defendant/petitioner was set ex-parte on 04.06.2018 that means the present petition is filed after five years only. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application of the defendant/petitioner on the ground of delay not duly explained fairly with cogent reasons.

6. Heard both the counsel and perused the material on record.

7. The fact remains that the suit was filed in the year 2018 and the defendant/petitioner herein was set ex-parte on 04.06.2018 for non-filing of the written statement within statutory period i.e., 90 days. The contention of learned counsel for defendant/petitioner herein that the defendant/petitioner was left the village and stayed far away place to eke out his livelihood is disproved by the cogent evidence by the respondent and petitioner herein is not fair in explaining reasons for delay. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent herein placed record wherein a criminal case No.23 of 2019 was registered against the defendant/petitioner herein on the file of Maddipadu PS as accused since the defendant/petitioner herein bet the plaintiff/respondent herein of the same village and used to attend the criminal case regularly. Therefore, the statement of the defendant/petitioner that he left the village due to which he did not contact his counsel and he came to know about the ex-parte decree when he returned to the village were all proved as false due to the incidents placed before this Court. It is further observed that even assuming that the defendant/petitioner was out of village having filed vakalath as a defendant, it is the duty of the defendant/petitioner to consult the advocate about the steps and proceedings in the suit. Even though the defendant/petitioner claiming that the delay of 128 days in filing this petition after suit was decreed on 20.01.2023 but he was set ex-parte on 04.06.2018, this exparte should be condoned since then is a delay of five years. No reason explained in his petition for the delay of five years.

8. The present petition under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed in I.A.No.886 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 after lapse of 128 days and after filing EP No.62/2023 which was numbered on 26.07.2023. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the petition by holding that the defendant/petitioner never resides outside the Tellabadu village and the affidavit of the defendant/petitioner herein do not disclose any particulars or placed any evidence where he stayed all these years except by simply making statement that he stayed far away from the village. The present petition is filed in a vague manner and the cause shown is not sufficient cause to condone the delay. On the other hand, the same was disproved by the cogent evidence. So far the defendant/petitioner herein did not take steps to set aside the ex-parte order dated 04.06.2018.

9. In view of the reasons stated above, the defendant/petitioner herein not put forth any reasonable explanation or reasons for the delay, more over made false statements contrary to the evidence and petitioner did not take steps for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 04.06.2018. It is further observed that the judgment as relied as extracted supra, is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the same is not binding. It is settled principle of law that no person is entitled any relief who comes to the Court with unclean hands, in the case in hand the petitioner herein filed present petition with unclean hands and tried to mislead the Court with false statement. The said principle is upheld by this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments.

10. In view of the same, the order passed by the Court below is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any error of law or perversity. As such the order of the Court below do not warrants any interference by this Court.

11. Accordingly, the present C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.