1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC assailing the order passed by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, I.A.No.1502 of 2018 in O.S.No.229 of 2014, dated 11.07.2022.

2. Petitioner is the petitioner - defendant and respondent is the respondent – plaintiff in I.A.No.1502 of 2018 in O.S.No.229 of 2014. The parties will be hereinafter referred to as petitioner – defendant and respondent – plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled legal principles and failed to appreciate the genuine cause explained, which would certainly constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. On account of misperception on the part of the petitioner – defendant’s employees, the employer cannot be made to suffer and be denied of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The learned Trial Court committed error apparent on the face of the record by relying upon the facts that transpired much prior to the date of passing to the decree and the reasons assigned are wholly unwarranted, order lacks valid reasons. The learned Trial Court failed to understand that the primary function of the Courts are to adjudicate the dispute between the parties to advance substantial justice, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is without due consideration of facts in proper perspective and is against the settled legal maxim “audi alteram partem”. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy ((1998) 7 SCC 123), (ii) Lekh Raj Vs. Muni Lal and Others ((2001) 2 SCC 762), (iii) Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers ((2010) 4 SCC 785), (iv) A.V.Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others ((2007) 4 SCC 221), (v) Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand ((2022) 7 SCC 247), (vi) Mohamed Ali Vs. V.Jaya and Others 9(2022) 10 SCC 477), (vii) Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2023 INSC 659), (viii) Dwarika Prasad (D), through LRs Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3828), (ix) Meenakshisundaram Textiles Vs. Valliammal Textiles Limited (MANU/TN/1715/2011), (x) Dhapu Bai and Others Vs. Kundu Mg (Joint Venture), Delhi and Another (2023 SCC OnLine MP 6880), (xi) M/s.Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs. Dr.Abburi Ramaiah and another (COMCA.No.31 of 2023, dated 16.10.2023 in the High Court for the State of Telangana,).

4. Learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff submits that petitioner – defendant has not shown any bona fide reasons to condone the delay of 180 days to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The learned Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons and rightly dismissed the delay application. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan (dead) Through Proposed Legal representative MS Rohini ((2020) 2 SCC 708), (ii) Yashpal Jain Vs. Sushila Devi and Others (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377), (iii) Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran and another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093), (iv) Sivella Yadaiah Vs. V.Pruthvi (2020 (6) ALD 432 (TS)), (v) M/s.Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Vs. Sri Mark Raj Kumar and another (I.A.No.1 of 2025 In/And COMCA.No.1 of 2025, dated 25.07.2025, of the High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant has filed his written submissions and counsel for the respondent – plaintiff has filed synopsis.

6. Respondent – plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of money of Rs.26,36,263/- against the petitioner – defendant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and with a direction to the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.96,339/- towards sales tax at the rate of 3% for non production of C- Form.

7. Petitioner – defendant remained ex-parte before the learned Trial Court thereby an ex-parte decree came to be passed on 22.12.2017 for an amount of Rs.26,36,263/- with subsequent interest on the principal sum of Rs.18,32,305/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization and further directed the petitioner - defendant to pay cost of the suit i.e., Rs.29,932/-.

8.1 Petitioner – defendant has filed I.A.No.1502 of 2018 in O.S.No.229 of 2014 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 180 days in filing the petition seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 22.12.2017.

               8.2 Affidavit is sworn by Sri. Guru C Dixit representing as CFO of the petitioner – defendant, they engaged counsel on behalf of the Company. He left the company in the month of August, 2015 and he informed the same to the field officer regard the suit proceedings. Unfortunately the field officer could not intimate the same to the company, he also left. Therefore, the company could not observe the suit proceedings nor had communication with the counsel. Suit proceedings are posted from time to time. He recently joined the company and he came to know from the company officers that the suit is decreed on 22.12.2017 as the petitioner – defendant was set ex-parte on 14.10.2015 for non filing of written statement. Petitioner – defendant has valid grounds to succeed in the suit, if interlocutory application is not allowed irreparable loss would be caused and the petitioner – defendant will be denied of valid opportunity and prayed to condone the delay of 180 days.

9. Respondent - plaintiff remained ex-parte in I.A.No.1502 of 2018.

10. The learned Trial Court observed in the impugned order that the petitioner – defendant failed to explain the delay properly to the satisfaction of the Court and dismissed the petition.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in CRP.No.2246 of 2022 seeking leave of the Court to receive the documents i.e., certified copy of reply affidavit filed by M/s True Wall Specialties Private Limited in vide C.P.IB.No.362 of 2021, certified copy of Emails, certified copy of Payment Voucher No.1741, certified copy of standard Chartered Bank Account showing the transaction, certified copy of letter of Credit (LC) dated 25.06.2012, certified copy of the letter issued by Mr.Guru Dixit and certified copy of the proforma invoice No.03/2012 dated 09.04.2012. The affidavit goes to show that the petitioner - defendant has paid the entire amount to the respondent – plaintiff.

12. Counter is filed by the respondent - plaintiff contending that the documents filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 are not relevant for adjudicating the CRP.

13. In Sanjay Kumar Singh5, the Supreme Court held that where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest on justice clearly renders it imperative then it may be allowed to be permitted on record.

14. CRP is arising out of the dismissal of an application i.e., I.A.No.1502 of 2018 in O.S.No.229 of 2014 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the documents which are filed along with the aforesaid I.A are letter of credits, payment voucher, proforma invoice. The only point to be considered in the CRP is: whether the petitioner – defendant has made out any case to condone the delay which the learned Trial Court has dismissed. The documents are not helpful to the case of the petitioner – defendant. Hence, they are not relevant to the CRP and IA is dismissed.

15.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant submits that the suit in O.S.No.229 of 2014 was dismissed for default on 23.08.2016 and later it was restored by an order in I.A.No.1421 of 2016. The learned Trial Court has not issued notice to the petitioner – defendant after its restoration and relied on the decision in the case of Dr.Abburi Ramaiah11.

               15.2 In Dr.Abburi Ramaiah11 the Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court as no fresh notice is issued to the party therein after the restoration of the suit.

               15.3 Coming to the case on hand, learned Trial Court observed in internal page No.4 of the order that “notice was ordered to the defendant [petitioner herein] and notice was duly served upon the petitioner – defendant who is the respondent in I.A.No.1421 of 2016” and the Company remained ex-parte, thereby the aforesaid I.A. came to be allowed and suit was restored and the petitioner – defendant is even having knowledge about the restoration of the suit but he again kept silent. There is no material on record to show that after the suit is restored the learned Trial Court has once again issued notice to the petitioner – defendant but it is observed in the order that the petitioner-defendant is having knowledge about the restoration of the suit. Hence the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant stated supra is not applicable to the case on hand.

16. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant that prior to filing the suit itself the Company has paid the entire amount but the respondent - plaintiff suppressing the said fact has obtained ex-parte decree. This Court is not venturing into the merits of the ex-parte decree passed by the learned Trial Court on 22.12.2017. Furthermore it is not the case of the petitioner – defendant in I.A.No.1502 of 2018 that the company has paid the entire amount.

Decisions cited by the petitioner’s counsel:

17.1 In N.Balakrishnan (Supra), the Supreme Court held that in deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the words ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.

               17.2 In Lekh Raj (Supra), the Supreme Court held that “in case of subsequent event or fact having bearing on the issues or relief in a suit or proceeding, which any party seeks to bring on record, the Court should not shut its door”.

               17.3 In Shukla, the Supreme Court observed that “the doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad.”

               17.4 In A.V.Papayya Sastry (Supra), the Supreme Court held that “once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practicing or playing fraud, it is vitiated.

               17.5 In Mohamed Ali (Supra), the point fell for consideration before the Supreme Court is whether directly revision application before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the refusal to set aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC can be said to be maintainable or not. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have entertained revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in view of a specific remedy of appeal as provided under the CPC itself.

               17.6 In Ashok Kumar (Supra), the Supreme Court held that for the fault of the advocate, the complainant cannot be made to suffer.

               17.7 In Dwarika Prasad (Supra) the Supreme Court held that Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits.

               17.8 In Meenakhisundaram Textiles (Supra), the Madras High Court held that “in the event the defendant is set ex-parte, the Court should be extra careful in such case and it should consider the pleadings and evidence and arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree.”

               17.9 In Dhapu Bai (Supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that “though the defendant was ex-parte before the learned Trial Court and he has also not filed the written statement but it is well settled that plaintiff has to prove his own case and cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence. The failure of defendants to establish their case would not enable the plaintiff to a decree”.

Decisions cited by the respondent’s counsel:

18.1 In Desh Raj (Supra) the Supreme Court dealt with Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC [power to condone delay in filing written statement beyond the prescribed period of 90 days] .

               18.2 In Yashpal Jain (Supra) the Supreme Court has issued directions to all Courts at District and Taluka levels shall ensure proper execution of the summons and in a time bound manner as prescribed under Order V Rule (2) of CPC and shall ensure that written statement is filed within the prescribed limit namely as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 and preferably within 30 days and to assign reasons in writing as to why the time limit is being extended beyond 30 days as indicated under Proviso to Sub-Rule (1) of Order VIII of CPC.

               18.3 In Thirunagalingam (Supra), the Supreme Court held that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter.

               18.4 Sivella Yadaiah (Supra) the High Court for the State of Telangana was dealing with Order VIII Rule – 1 – right to file written statement.

               18.5 In Sri Mark Raj Kumar (Supra), this High Court held that ‘the appellant only gives sporadic dates which randomly pop-up in a timeline from February, 2023 to December, 2024. There is no attempt to explain or account for the long blanks in-between these dates.

19. On perusal of the affidavit in I.A.No.1502 of 2018 which goes to show that Sri Guru C Dixit left the company in the month of August 2015 and he has entrusted the matter to the field officer, the field officer has also left the company without intimation and thereafter he has recently joined the company and he came to know from the company officers, that the suit is decreed on 22.12.2017. The affidavit is bereft of material particulars such as when the deponent has joined the company and when he came to know about the passing of the ex-parte decree by the learned Trial Court. Furthermore the affidavit is silent that when they made copy application, when the copy application was ready and when it is delivered to the party. The delay which is mentioned in I.A.No.1502 of 2008 is 180 days and the delay of dates are also not mentioned in the affidavit except stating that there is a delay of 180 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 22.12.2017.

20. In Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899), the Supreme Court observed at paragraph Nos. 39 and 40, which reads as under:

               “39. Thus, we have no hesitation in saying that both the expressions, by a necessary implication indicate that the phrase "within such period" signifies that the period covered therein extends to not only the original period within which, the appeal or the application, as the case may be, should have been filed, if not for the delay, but also the period taken in addition to the prescribed period of limitation for filing such appeal or application, as the case may be.

               40. As such, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay in filing of an appeal or application, as the case may be, beyond the stipulated period of limitation, the delay in the filing has to be explained by demonstrating the existence of a "sufficient cause" that resulted in such delay for both the prescribed period of limitation as-well as the period after the expiry of limitation, up to actual date of filing of such appeal or application, as the case may be, or to put it simply, explanation has to be given for the entire duration from the date when the clock of limitation began to tick, up until the date of actual filing, for seeking condonation of delay by recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

21. In the above said decision the Supreme Court held that the delay in filing has to be explained by demonstrating the existence of a sufficient cause that resulted in the said delay for both the prescribed period of limitation as well as period after the expiry of the limitation, up to actual date of filing of such appeal or application and explanation has to be given for entire duration from the date when the clock of limitation begins to tick up until date of actual filing.

22. Decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant stated supra from paragraph Nos.17.1 to 17.9 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case.

23. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff at paragraph Nos.18.3 and 18.5 are applicable to the case on hand and rest of the decisions are not applicable as the facts differs.

24. The affidavit is bereft of material particulars as stated supra, at paragraph No.19. The learned Trial Court has passed a reasoned order exercising its discretion while dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner – defendant has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and CRP is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

25. CRP.No.2246 of 2022 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.